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

Allergic Conjunctivitis Management: Update on Ophthalmic Solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review, is to present an updated revision of topical management of SAC and PAC, based on the available scientific evidence and focused on the impact of ophthalmic solution formulations on eye surface.

RECENT FINDINGS

Physicians treating ocular allergy should be aware of tear film and tear film disruption in SAC and PAC, and how eye drop composition and additives affect the physiology of the allergic eye. Seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis (SAC and PAC) are the most frequent causes of ocular allergy (OA), and both conditions are underdiagnosed and undertreated. SAC and PAC are immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. The additional tear film disruption caused by the release of inflammatory mediators increases and exacerbates the impact of signs and symptoms and may trigger damage of the ocular surface. Comorbidities are frequent, and dry eye disease in particular must be considered. Clinical guidelines for the management of SAC and PAC recommend topical therapy with antihistamines, mast cells stabilizers or dualaction agents as first-line treatment, but care should be taken, as many medications contain other compounds that may contribute to ocular surface damage.

Development and validation of a health practitioner survey on ocular allergy

Survey studies have played a significant role in understanding the gaps in the knowledge and practices of health practitioners. However, there have been no such survey studies on Ocular Allergy (OA). Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a survey on OA to better understand the gaps in the diagnostic, treatment, and collaborative care approaches of health practitioners in OA. The survey is titled "Survey on Ocular Allergy for Health Practitioners (SOAHP)". SOAHP was developed in a five-stage process. First, item extraction via the use of a literature review, second, face and content validity, third, a pilot study, fourth, test-retest reliability, and fifth, finalisation of the survey. 65 items under 6 domains were initially generated in the item extraction phase. Content validity was conducted on 15 experts in the field. This was conducted twice to reach consensus whereby items and domains were added, edited, kept, or removed, resulting in 50 items under 7 domains. The pilot study was conducted on 15 participants from the five relevant health practitioner fields (Allergists/Immunologists, General Practitioners (GPs), Ophthalmologists, Optometrists and Pharmacists). This altered the survey further to 40 items under 7 domains. Test-retest reliability was conducted on 25 participants from the five health practitioner fields. Reliability was moderate to almost perfect for most (97%) investigated items. The finalised survey was 40 items under 7 domains. SOAHP is the first survey created to assess diagnostic, treatment and collaborative care approaches of Allergists/Immunologists, GPs, Ophthalmologists, Optometrists and Pharmacists on OA. SOAHP will be a useful tool in clinical research on OA.

Ophthalmic drugs: in vitro paraoxonase 1 inhibition and molecular docking studies

Glaucoma is a neuropathy disorder and is generally treated by drugs. Allergic conjunctivitis is a common ophthalmologic disease. Paraoxonase 1 (PON1) is an organophosphate hydrolyzer and antiatherogenic enzyme. PON1 is known for preventing atherosclerosis through lipid-modifying features, as well as which has decisive actions of antiapoptosis, anti-inflammatory, antithrombosis, and antiadhesion antioxidant activity properties. Thus, reducing the enzyme levels in hyperthyroidism, chronic renal failure, glaucoma, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases is a significant risk. This study was tested some ophthalmic drugs used to treat the diseases, such as glaucoma and allergic conjunctivitis, mentioned above, travoprost, latanoprost, ketotifen, emedastine, and olopatadine, for their inhibition activities against PON1. These drugs displayed the potent inhibition effect with IC₅₀ values ranging between 14.95 ± 0.15 and 299.60 ± 4.07 μM and K_I constants ranging from 9.71 ± 2.63 to 261.50 ± 59.98 μM. Besides, the molecular docking analyses of the competitive inhibitors, travoprost, emedastine, and olopatadine, were performed to understand the binding interactions on the enzyme's binding site. According to both in vitro and in silico analysis results, travoprost had the most potent effect on PON1 enzyme activity.

Emerging Therapeutics for Ocular Surface Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review treatment advances in ocular allergy that include the treatment of the various signs and symptoms of the allergic inflammatory response of the ocular surface.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have demonstrated improved pharmacological effect of topical agents with artificial tears and cold compresses; brimonidine, a new ophthalmic decongestant which has demonstrated decreased rebound conjunctivitis; and potential use of contact lens and other novel delivery instruments to increase medication retention time. Currently, there have been limited advances in novel ophthalmic treatments. Non-pharmacological interventions have demonstrated in a randomized control study that artificial tears and the use cold compresses alone or in combination with ophthalmic antihistamines can enhance the effectiveness of a traditional pharmacological therapy. The primary advances have been the start of head-to-head studies comparing various agents actively being used in the treatment of ocular allergy. In addition, there has been increasing interest in the development of novel delivery systems to increase residence time of pharmacological agents in the ocular surface such as nanoparticles, microfilms; examining novel pathways of controlling the allergic inflammatory response of the ocular surface such as modulation of cytokines, transcription factors, and immunophilins.

Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.

Management of vernal keratoconjunctivitis

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a relatively rare, chronic form of ocular allergy that can potentially cause severe visual complications. Affecting mainly children and young adults, it is an IgE- and T cell-mediated disease, leading to a chronic inflammation in which eosinophil, lymphocyte and structural cell activation are involved. Treatment of VKC requires a multiple approach that includes conservative measures and pharmacologic treatment. Patients and parents should be made aware of the long duration of disease, its chronic evolution and possible complications. Treatment should be based on the duration and frequency of symptoms and the severity of corneal involvement. Mast cell stabilizers and antihistamines have been proven to be effective for the treatment of mild to moderate forms of VKC. In the most severe cases, topical steroids can be used as rescue medication to reduce conjunctival and corneal inflammation. Immunomodulators that have been investigated for VKC treatment include topical ocular preparations of cyclosporine A and tacrolimus. Topical cyclosporine A has been proven to be effective in the long-term treatment of VKC, significantly improving signs and symptoms without significant side effects.

Emedastine difumarate: a review of its potential ameliorating effect for tissue remodeling in allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Emedastine difumarate, a selective histamine-H1 receptor antagonist and effective antiallergic agent, inhibits various clinical symptoms of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, urticaria, allergic dermatitis, pruritus cutaneous, and prurigo. In addition to greater efficacy than other antihistamines, emedastine difumarate produces no adverse cardiovascular effects and exhibits minimal anticholinergic activity. Moreover, a recent study revealed that the effect of emedastine difumarate on inhibition of histamine-induced collagen synthesis in vitro was greater in dermal fibroblasts than in nasal mucosa fibroblasts. This result indicates that there are tissue-specific effects of emedastine difumarate and that it may be more effective for treating fibrosis in skin than in nasal mucosa. However, the mechanism and role of tissue remodeling is less well established for allergic skin diseases and allergic conjunctivitis, in comparison to respiratory allergic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This review outlines the involvement of histamine in the pathogenesis of tissue remodeling in a variety of organs, and presents the evidence for the effect of antihistamines on this process. Furthermore, this review also discusses antihistamines as an intervention strategy in tissue remodeling.

METHODS

The scientific literature, published abstracts, and selected textbooks were reviewed.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Although additional evidence is required, emerging evidence suggests that emedastine difumarate may be of value in the prevention of excess tissue remodeling in allergic skin inflammation.

Efficacy of olopatadine HCI 0.1%, ketotifen fumarate 0.025%, epinastine HCI 0.05%, emedastine 0.05% and fluorometholone acetate 0.1% ophthalmic solutions for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a placebo-controlled environmental trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and ocular surface variables of olopatadine, ketotifen fumarate, epinastine, emedastine and fluorometholone acetate ophthalmic solutions in preventing the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled study. A total of 100 patients with SAC were randomly assigned to one of five groups, in which they were administered olopatadine, ketotifen fumarate, epinastine, emedastine or fluorometholone acetate, instilled twice daily for 2 weeks. One eye of each patient was treated with the study drug and the other was treated with a placebo. Signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis (itching, redness, tearing, chemosis and eyelid swelling) were scored on a 4-point scale. Each symptom was assessed at baseline and then again after 1 and 2 weeks of treatment. Ocular surface variables were assessed by conjunctival impression cytology.

RESULTS

At weeks 1 and 2, all antiallergic agents were significantly more effective than placebo in alleviating itching, redness, tearing, chemosis and eyelid swelling. Fluorometholone acetate was significantly less effective than the other agents in reducing itching and redness at all control visits. Ocular surface findings by impression cytology improved significantly after all treatments compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SAC, olopatadine, ketotifen, epinastine and emedastine are more efficacious than fluorometholone acetate in preventing itching and redness. All the antiallergic agents gave similar results in terms of reducing tearing, chemosis and eyelid swelling. Our data showed that impression cytology parameters improved after treatment with antiallergic agents in patients with SAC.

Emerging drugs for ocular allergy

Ocular allergy is a common condition that usually affects the conjunctiva of the eye and is, therefore, often referred to as allergic conjunctivitis. The severity of the disease can range from mild itching and redness, as seen in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, to the more severe, sight-threatening forms such as vernal and atopic keratoconjunctivitis. The central mechanism in the pathogenesis of these diseases is IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation and activation of T lymphocytes, eosinophils and conjunctival structural cells. The pharmacotherapy of allergic conjunctivitis consists of several classes of drugs: antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, dual-acting agents and corticosteroids. None of the available drugs completely abolishes the development of ocular allergy. For this reason, new topical antiallergic/anti-inflammatory agents are currently and continually under clinical trials. This review provides a background to ocular allergic diseases, the medical need for therapy and current and potential new treatments.

Efficacy and tolerability of newer antihistamines in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

Treatment for allergic conjunctivitis has markedly expanded in recent years, providing opportunities for more focused therapy, but often leaving both physicians and patients confused over the variety of options. As monotherapy, oral antihistamines are an excellent choice when attempting to control multiple early-phase, and some late-phase, allergic symptoms in the eyes, nose and pharynx. Unfortunately, despite their efficacy in relief of allergic symptoms, systemic antihistamines may result in unwanted adverse effects, such as drowsiness and dry mouth. Newer second-generation antihistamines (cetirizine, fexofenadine, loratadine and desloratadine) are preferred over older first-generation antihistamines in order to avoid the sedative and anticholinergic effects that are associated with first-generation agents. When the allergic symptom or complaint, such as ocular pruritus, is isolated, focused therapy with topical (ophthalmic) antihistamines is often efficacious and clearly superior to systemic antihistamines, either as monotherapy or in conjunction with an oral or intranasal agent. Topical antihistaminic agents not only provide faster and superior relief than systemic antihistamines, but they may also possess a longer duration of action than other classes including vasoconstrictors, pure mast cell stabilisers, NSAIDs and corticosteroids. Many antihistamines have anti-inflammatory properties as well. Some of this anti-inflammatory effect seen with 'pure' antihistamines (levocabastine and emedastine) may be directly attributed to the blocking of the histamine receptor that has been shown to downregulate intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression and, in turn, limit chemotaxis of inflammatory cells. Some topical multiple-action histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine and epinastine) have been shown to prevent activation of neutrophils, eosinophils and macrophages, or inhibit release of leukotrienes, platelet-activating factors and other inflammatory mediators. Topical vasoconstrictor agents provide rapid relief, especially for redness; however, the relief is often short-lived, and overuse of vasoconstrictors may lead to rebound hyperaemia and irritation. Another class of topical agents, mast cell stabilisers (sodium cromoglicate [cromolyn sodium], nedocromil and lodoxamide), may be considered; however, they generally have a much slower onset of action. The efficacy of mast cell stabilisers may be attributed to anti-inflammatory properties in addition to mast cell stabilisation. In the class of topical NSAIDs, ketorolac has been promoted for ocular itching but has been found to be inferior for relief of allergic conjunctivitis when compared with olopatadine and emedastine. Lastly, topical corticosteroids may be considered for severe seasonal ocular allergy symptoms, although long-term use should be avoided because of risks of ocular adverse effects, including glaucoma and cataract formation.

Ocular Allergic Disease: Mechanisms, Disease Sub-types, Treatment

Ocular allergy refers to a variety of hypersensitivity disorders that affect the lid, conjunctiva, and/or cornea. Its incidence is estimated at over 20% of the general population in the United States. This review will discuss the various forms of ocular allergy, their pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. New frontiers in mechanisms, therapy, and management in the office are emphasized throughout.

Onset and Duration of Action of Ketotifen???0.025%???and???Emedastine???0.05% in Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and the safety of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution and emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution in subjects with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) induced by allergen exposure, using the Vienna Challenge Chamber model.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a double-masked, randomised, comparative, crossover study conducted at an allergy outpatient clinic in Austria.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Subjects with an allergy to grass pollen were exposed to the allergen in a pollen chamber for 4 hours, followed by a 3-hour break and then a second exposure for 3 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

Study participants were randomised to a treatment sequence (ketotifen followed by emedastine or emedastine followed by ketotifen), receiving 1 drop per eye of ketotifen or emedastine 2 hours after the initial allergen exposure in the pollen chamber.

OUTCOMES

Individual and composite ocular, individual and composite nasal, and total (ocular + nasal) symptom complex scores were determined by repeated exposure to allergen 0-2 hours and 5-8 hours after dosing. Onset of action was defined as the time to the first observation of a 20% reduction from baseline in the composite ocular symptom score.

RESULTS

All 37 subjects enrolled completed the study. The median time to onset of action was 15 minutes for ketotifen and 30 minutes for emedastine. This difference was significant using the generalised linear model (p = 0.048), but not for the log-rank test analysis. In the initial 2 hours post dose, ketotifen provided significantly greater relief of both composite ocular symptoms (p = 0.026) and total symptom complex (p = 0.014). Both medications were effective in reducing symptoms 5 to 8 hours after dosing. No adverse events were reported for either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Vienna Challenge Chamber model, ketotifen and emedastine both effectively alleviated ocular symptoms of SAC after single-dose administration. Ketotifen had a faster onset of action and provided better symptom relief than emedastine during the first 2 hours after dosing. The rapid onset of action and symptom control make ketotifen a valuable treatment for SAC.

Ocular allergy guidelines: a practical treatment algorithm

The treatment of ocular allergy requires a better understanding of the spectrum of clinical disorders involving various components of the immune system, and of interactions at the conjunctival surface. The immune response focuses primarily on the different levels of activity of Th2 lymphocytes and various other immune cells associated with allergic disorders, including mast cells, eosinophils, fibroblasts, and epithelial and endothelial cells. Ocular allergic disorders include seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC), vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC), giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC) and atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), which, through immunopathological and molecular immunological techniques, can all be better appreciated as being part of a larger spectrum of an atopic disease state. In SAC, pathological changes, such as increased mast-cell activation, the presence of migratory inflammatory cells, and early signs of cellular activation at the molecular level, are minimal. In PAC, these changes are more pronounced in line with the increased duration of allergenic stimulation. In more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis, such as VKC in children and AKC in adults, the following changes are evident: a persistent state of mast cell, eosinophil and lymphocyte activation; noted switching from connective-tissue to mucosal-type mast cells; increased involvement of corneal pathology; and follicular development and fibrosis. The treatment of acute and more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis has focused in the past on symptomatic relief of symptoms, but with a better understanding of the mechanisms involved we can now provide interventional therapeutic strategies and symptomatic relief. Our advances in the basic understanding of these conditions are providing the foundation for guidelines that improve the ocular health of patients with ocular allergies.

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

BACKGROUND

Emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution are 2 topical antiallergic agents available in the United States and other countries. Emedastine is indicated for the temporary relief of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Ketotifen is indicated for the temporary relief of ocular itching caused by allergic conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of these agents in the temporary relief of ocular itching due to allergic conjunctivitis. The 2 agents were compared with each other and with placebo (artificial tears) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study. At visit 1, CAC was performed on eligible subjects to identify the dose required to elicit a positive allergic reaction. Subjects returned after 7 days for visit 2 to confirm the allergen dose. On day 14 (+/-3) of the study, enrolled subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: emedastine in I eye and placebo in the other, ketotifen in 1 eye and placebo in the other, or emedastine in 1 eye and ketotifen in the other. In 25 subjects, bilateral CAC was performed 5 minutes after study medication instillation. In a second group of 20 subjects, CAC was performed 15 minutes after medication instillation. Itching was graded according to a standardized 5-point scale (0 = none to 4 = severe itching) at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. Differences in efficacy scores between treatments and versus placebo were compared using 2-sample t tests of equal variance.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients (mean age, 41.2 years) received treatment: 16 received emedastine in 1 eye and ketotifen in the other; 14 received emedastine in 1 eye and placebo in the other; and 15 received ketotifen in 1 eye and placebo in the other. Both emedastine and ketotifen significantly inhibited itching (P < 0.05) compared with placebo at all time points after the 5- and 15-minute CAC. Mean raw scores for the active treatments were not statistically different. The mean itching efficacy scores were also not statistically different between active treatments. No adverse events were reported in this study.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that emedastine and ketotifen are not significantly different with respect to anti-itching efficacy in the CAC model of acute allergic conjunctivitis.

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

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 I 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.