Suppr超能文献

三种局部用抗组胺药/肥大细胞稳定剂对成人过敏性结膜炎的眼部舒适度及干眼效果:一项随机、双盲交叉研究

Ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine/mast cell stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized, double-masked crossover study.

作者信息

Torkildsen Gail L, Ousler George W, Gomes Paul

机构信息

Andover Eye Associates, Andover, Massachusetts 01845, USA.

出版信息

Clin Ther. 2008 Jul;30(7):1264-71. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(08)80050-1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare short-term (5-minute) ocular comfort and drying effects of 3 topical antihistamine/mast cell stabilizers-epinastine, azelastine, and ketotifen-in patients with allergic conjunctivitis (AC).

METHODS

Adults with a history of AC, as confirmed on skin testing conducted within the previous 2 years, were enrolled in this single-center, randomized, double-masked crossover study. At visit 1, patients were randomized to receive a single drop of epinastine in 1 eye and either azelastine or ketotifen in the other eye. Ocular comfort was assessed by patients on an 11-point scale (0 = very comfortable to 10 = very uncomfortable) immediately (0 minute) and at 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 minutes after instillation. Patients were also asked to describe how their eyes felt at 3 minutes using a standardized list of positive (soothing, smooth, refreshing, cool, and comfortable), neutral (thick, sticky, and filmy), and negative (stinging, irritating, and burning) descriptor words. At visits 2 to 4, patients were examined for ocular drying and tear-film stability using fluorescein staining and ocular protection index (OPI) evaluation, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients (27 women, 13 men; mean age, 40 years [range, 18-73 years]) were included in the study. The mean comfort score was significantly lower (indicating more comfort) with epinastine compared with azelastine at 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 minutes (between-treatment differences, 2.90, 1.85, 1.35, and 0.63, respectively; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.019) and compared with ketotifen immediately after instillation (between-treatment difference, 1.2; P = 0.014). The mean ocular comfort score was significantly lower with ketotifen compared with azelastine at 0.5, 1, and 2 minutes (between-treatment differences, 2.35, 1.35, and 1.10, respectively; P = 0.001, P = 0.023, and P = 0.028). A majority (85%) of patients chose positive comfort descriptors to describe epinastine versus 34% with azelastine. No significant differences in fluorescein staining or OPI were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study in patients with AC, following administration of a single drop, epinastine was rated as more comfortable than azelastine and ketotifen. None of the tested medications were associated with significant acute ocular drying effects.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较3种局部用抗组胺药/肥大细胞稳定剂(依匹斯汀、氮卓斯汀和酮替芬)对过敏性结膜炎(AC)患者的短期(5分钟)眼部舒适度和干眼效果。

方法

在过去2年内经皮肤试验确诊有AC病史的成年人纳入本单中心、随机、双盲交叉研究。在第1次就诊时,患者被随机分配,一只眼滴入一滴依匹斯汀,另一只眼滴入氮卓斯汀或酮替芬。患者在滴入药物后立即(0分钟)以及0.5、1、2和5分钟时,以11分制(0 = 非常舒适至10 = 非常不舒服)评估眼部舒适度。还要求患者在3分钟时使用一组标准化的正面(舒缓、顺滑、清爽、清凉和舒适)、中性(浓稠、粘稠和有薄膜感)和负面(刺痛、刺激和灼烧)描述词来描述眼睛的感觉。在第2至4次就诊时,分别使用荧光素染色和眼保护指数(OPI)评估来检查患者的眼干情况和泪膜稳定性。

结果

本研究共纳入40例患者(27例女性,13例男性;平均年龄40岁[范围18 - 73岁])。在0.5、1、2和5分钟时,依匹斯汀的平均舒适度评分显著低于氮卓斯汀(表明更舒适)(治疗组间差异分别为2.90、1.85、1.35和0.63;P < 0.001、P < 0.001、P = 0.001和P = 0.019),且在滴入药物后立即与酮替芬相比也显著更低(治疗组间差异为1.2;P = 0.014)。在0.5、1和2分钟时,酮替芬的平均眼部舒适度评分显著低于氮卓斯汀(治疗组间差异分别为2.35、1.35和1.10;P = 0.001、P = 0.023和P = 0.028)。大多数(85%)患者选择用正面舒适度描述词来描述依匹斯汀,而选择氮卓斯汀的为34%。荧光素染色或OPI未观察到显著差异。

结论

在这项针对AC患者的小型研究中,单次滴入药物后,依匹斯汀的舒适度评分高于氮卓斯汀和酮替芬。所测试的药物均未显示出显著的急性眼干效果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验