Abelson Mark B, Kaplan Allen P
Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Clin Ther. 2002 Mar;24(3):445-56. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(02)85045-7.
When selecting treatment for allergic conjunctivitis, a primary concern is whether to choose local or systemic therapy.
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.
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.
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).
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.
在选择过敏性结膜炎的治疗方法时,一个主要关注点是选择局部治疗还是全身治疗。
本研究比较了0.05%依美斯汀滴眼液与口服10毫克氯雷他定及其联合用药在过敏性结膜炎结膜过敏原激发模型中的疗效。
这是一项单中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照、平行组研究。在第1次就诊时,符合条件的受试者接受结膜过敏原激发试验,以确定引发阳性过敏反应所需的剂量。7天后,受试者返回进行第2次就诊,确认过敏原剂量。在2周后的第3次就诊时,受试者被随机分配接受依美斯汀加安慰剂胶囊、氯雷他定加安慰剂滴眼液,或依美斯汀和氯雷他定两者。在接受研究药物1小时后,受试者双眼接受过敏原激发。使用标准化的5分制量表对过敏体征和症状进行分级。主要疗效变量为瘙痒和结膜充血。次要疗效变量为睫状和巩膜上充血、球结膜水肿、眼睑肿胀和流泪。在激发后3、5和10分钟对瘙痒进行主观分级。所有其他变量在激发后5、10和20分钟进行评估。
80名受试者(平均年龄43.68岁)被随机分配接受研究治疗。40名受试者(20名男性,20名女性)接受依美斯汀加安慰剂胶囊,20名(7名男性,13名女性)接受氯雷他定加安慰剂滴眼液,20名(12名男性,8名女性)接受两种活性治疗。在第3次就诊时的组间疗效比较中,依美斯汀和氯雷他定在所有时间点的瘙痒和充血评分差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。依美斯汀和氯雷他定联合用药在瘙痒的3个时间点中的2个以及充血的所有时间点上疗效评分均显著优于单独使用氯雷他定(P<0.05)。联合用药在瘙痒的3个时间点中的1个以及充血的9个时间点中的6个上显著优于单独使用依美斯汀(P<0.05)。
在本研究中,在人类结膜过敏原激发模型中,依美斯汀在减轻与过敏性结膜炎相关的瘙痒和发红方面比氯雷他定更有效。