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

References

• Gilman AG, Ral TW, Nies AS, Taylor P editors, Goodman and Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York (NY): Pergamon Press, 1990
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen SC. Evaluation and treatment of the allergic patient. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1998;28:282
   Google Scholar
• Wiens JJ, Jackson WB. New directions in the therapy for ocular allergy. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1988;28:332
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abelson MB, Soter NA, Simon MA, Dohlman J, Allansmith MR. Histamine in human tears. Am J Ophthalmol 1977; 83(3):417–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;91(2):226–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Physicians desk reference for ophthalmic medicines, 32nd ed. Medical Economics: Thomson Healthcare, 2004 [p. 208–9; 289]
   Google Scholar
• Weston JH, Udell IJ, Abelson MB. H1 receptors in the human ocular surface. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981;20(Suppl):32
   Google Scholar
• Jennings B. Mechanisms, diagnosis and management of common ocular allergies. J Am Optom Assoc 1990;61:s32
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Clamam HN. The biology of the immune response. J Am Med Assoc 1987;258:2834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allansmith MR, Ross RN. Ocular allergy and mast cell stabilizers. Survey Ophthalmol 1986;30:229
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Chambers WA, Smith L. Conjunctival allergen challenge. A clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:84–8
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Stegman R, Miller D. A human model of allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1975;93:1354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moeller C, Bjorksten B, Nisson G. The precision of the conjunct-ival provocation test. Allergy 1984;39:37
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kari O, Salo OP, Bjorksten F. Allergic conjunctivitis, total and specific lgE in the tear fluid. Acta Ophthalmol 1985;63:97
   Google Scholar
• Sharif NA, Xu SX, Yanni JM. Olopatadine (AL-4943A) ligand binding and functional studies on a novel, long acting H1-selective histamine antagonist and anti-allergic agent for use in allergic conjunctivitis. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 12(4):1996:401–7
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Spangler Dl, 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
   Google Scholar
• Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch G, et al. A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydro-chloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival antigen challenge model. Clin Ther 2000;22(7):826–33
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar