References
- Abelson MB, Smith L, Chapin M. Ocular allergic disease: mechanisms, disease sub-types, treatment. Ocular Surface 2003;1:127–49
- Phipatanakul W. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: epidemiology. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2005;25:263–81
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Abelson M, Chambers W, Smith L. Conjunctival allergen challenge: a clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:84–8
- Irani A, Schwartz L. Human mast cell heterogeneity. Allergy Proc 1994;15:303–8
- 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
- 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