• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Liposomal Eye Spray Is as Effective as Antihistamine Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis Induced by Conjunctival Provocation Testing.脂质体眼喷雾在结膜激发试验诱发的过敏性鼻结膜炎患者中与抗组胺眼药水效果相当。
Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2019;179(2):123-131. doi: 10.1159/000496938. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
2
Evaluation of the onset and duration of effect of azelastine eye drops (0.05%) versus placebo in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using an allergen challenge model.使用过敏原激发模型评估0.05%氮卓斯汀滴眼液与安慰剂对过敏性结膜炎患者起效时间和作用持续时间的影响。
Ophthalmology. 2000 Dec;107(12):2152-7. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00349-3.
3
Randomized, double-masked comparison of olopatadine ophthalmic solution, mometasone furoate monohydrate nasal spray, and fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets using the conjunctival and nasal allergen challenge models.使用结膜和鼻腔过敏原激发模型对奥洛他定滴眼液、糠酸莫米松一水合物鼻喷雾剂和盐酸非索非那定片进行随机、双盲比较。
Clin Ther. 2003 Aug;25(8):2245-67. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80217-5.
4
Comparison of ketotifen fumarate ophthalmic solution alone, desloratadine alone, and their combination for inhibition of the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model: a double-masked, placebo- and active-controlled trial.在结膜过敏原激发模型中比较富马酸酮替芬滴眼液单药、地氯雷他定单药及其联合用药对季节性变应性鼻结膜炎体征和症状的抑制作用:一项双盲、安慰剂对照和阳性对照试验。
Clin Ther. 2003 Jul;25(7):1975-87. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80199-6.
5
Time to onset and duration of action of the antihistamine bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solutions 1.0% and 1.5% in allergic conjunctivitis: a phase III, single-center, prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, conjunctival allergen challenge assessment in adults and children.苯海拉明倍他司汀贝他斯汀滴眼液 1.0%和 1.5%在过敏性结膜炎中的起效时间和作用持续时间:一项成人和儿童的 III 期、单中心、前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照、结膜变应原挑战评估的研究。
Clin Ther. 2009 Sep;31(9):1908-21. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.09.001.
6
Comparison of the efficacy of combined fluticasone propionate and olopatadine versus combined fluticasone propionate and fexofenadine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis induced by conjunctival allergen challenge.丙酸氟替卡松与奥洛他定联合用药对比丙酸氟替卡松与非索非那定联合用药治疗结膜变应原激发引起的变应性鼻结膜炎的疗效
Clin Ther. 2002 Jul;24(7):1161-74. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(02)80027-3.
7
[Safety and efficacy of a new preservative-free levocabastine ophthalmic solution (Levofree®) using the conjunctival provocation test].[使用结膜激发试验评估新型无防腐剂左卡巴斯汀滴眼液(Levofree®)的安全性和有效性]
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2012 Sep;35(7):491-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2011.08.016. Epub 2012 Apr 10.
8
[Comparison of three antiallergic eyedrops in a specific conjunctival provocation test: mequitazine, levocabastine and dexamethasone].
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2005 Mar;28(3):244-50. doi: 10.1016/s0181-5512(05)81050-2.
9
The conjunctival provocation test model of ocular allergy: utility for assessment of an ocular corticosteroid, loteprednol etabonate.眼部过敏的结膜激发试验模型:用于评估眼部皮质类固醇药物氯替泼诺的效用。
J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1998 Dec;14(6):533-42. doi: 10.1089/jop.1998.14.533.
10
Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.奥洛他定与依匹斯汀滴眼液在结膜过敏原激发模型中的临床疗效
Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Aug;20(8):1227-33. doi: 10.1185/030079904125004330.

引用本文的文献

1
Effects of ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops on symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.含四氢嘧啶的鼻喷雾剂和滴眼液对季节性变应性鼻结膜炎症状的影响。
Clin Transl Allergy. 2021 Mar;11(1):e12006. doi: 10.1002/clt2.12006.

本文引用的文献

1
Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber.变应原暴露室内固定剂量组合制剂鼻内氮卓斯汀-丙酸氟替卡松的起效时间。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Sep-Oct;6(5):1726-1732.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.01.031. Epub 2018 Feb 7.
2
EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.EAACI 变应原免疫治疗指南:过敏性鼻结膜炎。
Allergy. 2018 Apr;73(4):765-798. doi: 10.1111/all.13317. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
3
Specific Characteristics in Digital Assessment of Conjunctival Redness.结膜充血数字评估的具体特征。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;238:181-184.
4
Conjunctival allergen provocation test : guidelines for daily practice.结膜变应原激发试验:临床实践指南。
Allergy. 2017 Jan;72(1):43-54. doi: 10.1111/all.12986. Epub 2016 Aug 18.
5
Efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen-challenge model.使用结膜过敏原激发模型评估0.77%盐酸奥洛他定治疗过敏性结膜炎患者的疗效和安全性。
Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep 14;9:1703-13. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S83263. eCollection 2015.
6
Image-Based Assessment of Allergic Inflammation under Conjunctival Provocation.基于图像的结膜激发试验下过敏性炎症评估
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;213:15-8.
7
Photodocumentation of Allergic Severity under Conjunctival Provocation.结膜激发试验下过敏严重程度的照片记录
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;213:11-4.
8
Conjunctival provocation tests: a predictive factor for patients' seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms.结膜激发试验:患者季节性变应性鼻结膜炎症状的一个预测因素。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015 May-Jun;3(3):381-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2014.10.015. Epub 2015 Jan 22.
9
Quantitative conjunctival provocation test for controlled clinical trials.用于对照临床试验的定量结膜激发试验。
Methods Inf Med. 2014;53(4):238-44. doi: 10.3414/ME13-12-0142. Epub 2014 Jun 27.
10
Liposomal Nasal Spray versus Guideline-Recommended Steroid Nasal Spray in Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Comparison of Tolerability and Quality of Life.脂质体鼻喷雾剂与指南推荐的类固醇鼻喷雾剂治疗慢性鼻窦炎患者的耐受性和生活质量比较
J Allergy (Cairo). 2014;2014:146280. doi: 10.1155/2014/146280. Epub 2014 May 22.

脂质体眼喷雾在结膜激发试验诱发的过敏性鼻结膜炎患者中与抗组胺眼药水效果相当。

Liposomal Eye Spray Is as Effective as Antihistamine Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis Induced by Conjunctival Provocation Testing.

作者信息

Grzella Anne-Nele, Schleicher Sabine, Shah-Hosseini Kija, Astvatsatourov Anatoli, Raskopf Esther, Allekotte Silke, Mösges Ralph

机构信息

Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology (IMSB), Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

CRI - Clinical Research International Ltd., Cologne, Germany.

出版信息

Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2019;179(2):123-131. doi: 10.1159/000496938. Epub 2019 Mar 25.

DOI:10.1159/000496938
PMID:30909275
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6561677/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Liposomal eye spray (LS) has been introduced for the treatment of dry eye. Whether LS can also relieve symptoms due to allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) has not yet been sufficiently investigated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the onset of action, the reduction of allergy symptoms, and the safety of LS - a nonpharmacological treatment option - compared with those of antihistamine eye drops (AD).

METHODS

In this open, prospective, controlled, monocenter noninterventional study, adults with ARC received either LS or AD for the relief of eye irritation after a positive conjunctival provocation test (CPT). All patients completed a questionnaire before and after the CPT. Eye irritation was rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 6 time points. Conjunctival redness was analyzed using objective digital analysis based on images taken during the study visit.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 40 patients (20 per group). In both groups, 80% of patients perceived an onset of action within 0-2 min after application of LS or AD following the CPT. Relief of eye irritation (as determined by VAS) increased throughout the visit for both groups. In the digital analysis, the mean proportion of redness of the eye decreased from 10.3 to 7.0% for LS and from 10.4 to 6.5% for AD, with the largest difference observed 10 min after application (LS: 8.9%; AD: 6.0%; p = 0.094).

CONCLUSIONS

LS is a nonpharmacological treatment option for ARC, showing no significant difference or relevant numerical inferiority to AD in any parameter studied. It was generally safe and well tolerated.

摘要

背景

脂质体眼喷雾(LS)已被用于治疗干眼症。LS是否也能缓解过敏性鼻结膜炎(ARC)引起的症状尚未得到充分研究。

目的

本研究旨在评估LS(一种非药物治疗选择)与抗组胺眼药水(AD)相比的起效时间、过敏症状减轻情况及安全性。

方法

在这项开放、前瞻性、对照、单中心非干预性研究中,患有ARC的成年人在结膜激发试验(CPT)呈阳性后接受LS或AD治疗以缓解眼部刺激。所有患者在CPT前后均完成一份问卷。在6个时间点使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对眼部刺激进行评分。基于研究访视期间拍摄的图像,使用客观数字分析对结膜充血情况进行分析。

结果

收集了40例患者的数据(每组20例)。在两组中,80%的患者在CPT后应用LS或AD后0 - 2分钟内感觉到起效。两组在整个访视期间眼部刺激的缓解情况(由VAS确定)均有所增加。在数字分析中,LS组眼部充血的平均比例从10.3%降至7.0%,AD组从10.4%降至6.5%,应用后10分钟差异最大(LS组:8.9%;AD组:6.0%;p = 0.094)。

结论

LS是ARC的一种非药物治疗选择,在任何研究参数上与AD相比均无显著差异或数值上的明显劣势。它总体上安全且耐受性良好。