D'Arienzo Peter A, Leonardi Andrea, Bensch George
Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Clin Ther. 2002 Mar;24(3):409-16. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(02)85042-1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
0.05%富马酸依美斯汀滴眼液和0.025%富马酸酮替芬滴眼液是在美国和其他国家可用的两种局部用抗过敏药物。依美斯汀用于暂时缓解过敏性结膜炎的体征和症状。酮替芬用于暂时缓解过敏性结膜炎引起的眼部瘙痒。
本研究的目的是比较这些药物在暂时缓解过敏性结膜炎所致眼部瘙痒方面的疗效。使用结膜过敏原激发(CAC)模型将这两种药物相互比较,并与安慰剂(人工泪液)进行比较。
这是一项单中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究。在第1次就诊时,对符合条件的受试者进行CAC,以确定引发阳性过敏反应所需的剂量。受试者在7天后返回进行第2次就诊,以确认过敏原剂量。在研究的第14天(±3天),入选的受试者被随机分为3个治疗组之一:一只眼用依美斯汀,另一只眼用安慰剂;一只眼用酮替芬,另一只眼用安慰剂;或者一只眼用依美斯汀,另一只眼用酮替芬。在25名受试者中,在滴入研究药物5分钟后进行双侧CAC。在另一组20名受试者中,在滴入药物15分钟后进行CAC。在激发后3、5和10分钟,根据标准化的5分制(0 = 无瘙痒至4 = 严重瘙痒)对瘙痒进行分级。使用等方差的双样本t检验比较治疗组之间以及与安慰剂相比的疗效评分差异。
共有45例患者(平均年龄41.2岁)接受了治疗:16例患者一只眼用依美斯汀,另一只眼用酮替芬;14例患者一只眼用依美斯汀,另一只眼用安慰剂;15例患者一只眼用酮替芬,另一只眼用安慰剂。在5分钟和15分钟的CAC后的所有时间点,与安慰剂相比,依美斯汀和酮替芬均显著抑制了瘙痒(P < 0.05)。活性治疗的平均原始评分无统计学差异。活性治疗之间的平均瘙痒疗效评分也无统计学差异。本研究中未报告不良事件。
本研究结果表明,在急性过敏性结膜炎的CAC模型中,依美斯汀和酮替芬在止痒疗效方面无显著差异。