The Experts below are selected from a list of 1002 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lisa M. Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of 0 05 Levocabastine versus 4 sodium cromolyn in the allergen challenge model
Ophthalmology, 1995Co-Authors: Mark B. Abelson, Michelle A. George, Lisa M. SmithAbstract:Abstract Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 0.05% Levocabastine compared with 4% Cromolyn for treating allergic conjunctivitis induced by ocular allergen challenge. Methods: Subjects who met all entry criteria and reacted positively to ocular allergen challenge at two previous visits (n = 50) received placebo in one eye and Cromolyn in the fellow eye, four times daily for 2 weeks. On day 18, subjects received the final dose of Cromolyn in the pretreated eye and one drop of Levocabastine in the fellow eye. Subjects were challenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Four hours after drug administration, subjects were rechallenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Results: Levocabastine was significantly more effective than Cromolyn in inhibiting itching, hyperemia, eyelid swelling, chemosis, and tearing after the initial challenge and 4-hour rechallenge ( P Conclusion: These results suggest that Levocabastine is superior to Cromolyn for treating allergen-induced conjunctivitis and has a duration of action of at least 4 hours.
-
Evaluation of 0.05% Levocabastine versus 4% sodium cromolyn in the allergen challenge model.
Ophthalmology, 1995Co-Authors: Mark B. Abelson, Michelle A. George, Lisa M. SmithAbstract:Abstract Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 0.05% Levocabastine compared with 4% Cromolyn for treating allergic conjunctivitis induced by ocular allergen challenge. Methods: Subjects who met all entry criteria and reacted positively to ocular allergen challenge at two previous visits (n = 50) received placebo in one eye and Cromolyn in the fellow eye, four times daily for 2 weeks. On day 18, subjects received the final dose of Cromolyn in the pretreated eye and one drop of Levocabastine in the fellow eye. Subjects were challenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Four hours after drug administration, subjects were rechallenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Results: Levocabastine was significantly more effective than Cromolyn in inhibiting itching, hyperemia, eyelid swelling, chemosis, and tearing after the initial challenge and 4-hour rechallenge ( P Conclusion: These results suggest that Levocabastine is superior to Cromolyn for treating allergen-induced conjunctivitis and has a duration of action of at least 4 hours.
Mark B. Abelson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An Efficacy and Tolerance Comparison of Emedastine Difumarate 0.05% and Levocabastine Hydrochloride 0.05%: Reducing Chemosis and Eyelid Swelling in Subjects with Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 2000Co-Authors: Antonio G. Secchi, Marino Discepola, Jean Deschenes, Andrea Leonardi, Antonio G. Secchi, Mark B. AbelsonAbstract:. Purpose: To compare emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% BID to Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% BID in reducing chemosis, eyelid swelling and other signs and symptoms in subjects with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Methods: In a randomized, double-masked, parallel controlled study, emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% BID was compared to Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% BID for control of chemosis, eyelid swelling and other parameters in the environmental allergy study model. Results: At Days 7, 14, 30 and 42, emedastine was significantly better than Levocabastine at controlling chemosis and eyelid swelling (p
-
an efficacy and tolerance comparison of emedastine difumarate 0 05 and Levocabastine hydrochloride 0 05 reducing chemosis and eyelid swelling in subjects with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 2000Co-Authors: Antonio G. Secchi, Marino Discepola, Jean Deschenes, Andrea Leonardi, Antonio G. Secchi, Mark B. AbelsonAbstract:. Purpose: To compare emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% BID to Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% BID in reducing chemosis, eyelid swelling and other signs and symptoms in subjects with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Methods: In a randomized, double-masked, parallel controlled study, emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% BID was compared to Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% BID for control of chemosis, eyelid swelling and other parameters in the environmental allergy study model. Results: At Days 7, 14, 30 and 42, emedastine was significantly better than Levocabastine at controlling chemosis and eyelid swelling (p<0.05). A statistical trend was seen at Day 3 (0.05
-
evaluation of 0 05 Levocabastine versus 4 sodium cromolyn in the allergen challenge model
Ophthalmology, 1995Co-Authors: Mark B. Abelson, Michelle A. George, Lisa M. SmithAbstract:Abstract Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 0.05% Levocabastine compared with 4% Cromolyn for treating allergic conjunctivitis induced by ocular allergen challenge. Methods: Subjects who met all entry criteria and reacted positively to ocular allergen challenge at two previous visits (n = 50) received placebo in one eye and Cromolyn in the fellow eye, four times daily for 2 weeks. On day 18, subjects received the final dose of Cromolyn in the pretreated eye and one drop of Levocabastine in the fellow eye. Subjects were challenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Four hours after drug administration, subjects were rechallenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Results: Levocabastine was significantly more effective than Cromolyn in inhibiting itching, hyperemia, eyelid swelling, chemosis, and tearing after the initial challenge and 4-hour rechallenge ( P Conclusion: These results suggest that Levocabastine is superior to Cromolyn for treating allergen-induced conjunctivitis and has a duration of action of at least 4 hours.
-
Evaluation of 0.05% Levocabastine versus 4% sodium cromolyn in the allergen challenge model.
Ophthalmology, 1995Co-Authors: Mark B. Abelson, Michelle A. George, Lisa M. SmithAbstract:Abstract Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 0.05% Levocabastine compared with 4% Cromolyn for treating allergic conjunctivitis induced by ocular allergen challenge. Methods: Subjects who met all entry criteria and reacted positively to ocular allergen challenge at two previous visits (n = 50) received placebo in one eye and Cromolyn in the fellow eye, four times daily for 2 weeks. On day 18, subjects received the final dose of Cromolyn in the pretreated eye and one drop of Levocabastine in the fellow eye. Subjects were challenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Four hours after drug administration, subjects were rechallenged and evaluated after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Results: Levocabastine was significantly more effective than Cromolyn in inhibiting itching, hyperemia, eyelid swelling, chemosis, and tearing after the initial challenge and 4-hour rechallenge ( P Conclusion: These results suggest that Levocabastine is superior to Cromolyn for treating allergen-induced conjunctivitis and has a duration of action of at least 4 hours.
-
Levocabastine eye drops: a new approach for the treatment of acute allergic conjunctivitis.
European journal of ophthalmology, 1994Co-Authors: Mark B. Abelson, Dana WeintraubAbstract:Acute allergic conjunctivitis (AAC) is a common ocular allergic disorder and incident rates as high as 20% have been reported. Although a wide range of therapeutic agents are available for the treatment of AAC, the ideal treatment seems to have remained elusive. Levocabastine, a highly potent specific H1-receptor, appears to offer a promising alternative as a topical single-agent therapy. Levocabastine eye drops have been found to be well tolerated with an adverse-effect profile comparable to placebo and sodium cromoglycate. In addition, ocular Levocabastine has been shown to have a rapid onset and long duration of action. The efficacy of Levocabastine has been extensively investigated in conjunctival provocation tests and environmental studies. The available data suggest that ocular Levocabastine is an effective therapeutic agent. Statistically significant differences in favour of Levocabastine have been observed in comparisons with sodium cromoglycate, antazoline/naphazoline and oral terfenadine.
A K Olsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Topical Levocabastine compared with orally administered terfenadine for the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis.
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 1993Co-Authors: P Søhoel, B A Freng, J Kramer, S Poppe, R Rebo, F R Korsrud, O Garud, O J Woxen, A K OlsenAbstract:This study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new topical (nasal spray and eye drops) H1-receptor antagonist, Levocabastine, with that of orally administered terfenadine for the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. A total of 115 patients with documented birch pollen allergy were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial. Treatment was initiated immediately before the birch pollen season started and continued for a total of 8 weeks. Xylometrazoline (Otrivin) nasal spray was permitted as rescue medication. The investigator's evaluation of symptoms showed similar effects for Levocabastine and terfenadine. Both the patients' and the investigator's global evaluations of ocular and nasal symptoms disclosed a somewhat higher percentage of good or excellent results for Levocabastine, but the differences were not statistically significant. Visual analog scale ratings from the patients' diaries showed better results for Levocabastine. Levocabastine was significantly more effective than terfenadine in relieving sneezing, rhinorrhea, lacrimation, itch, and burning sensation (p < 0.05). For some symptoms, Levocabastine was significantly more effective than terfenadine on days when the pollen count was high. There were no statistically significant differences in the use of rescue medication or in the incidence of adverse reactions reported in each treatment group. In the present study topical Levocabastine was frequently more effective than orally administered terfenadine for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Both drugs were well-tolerated.
-
Topical Levocabastine compared with orally administered terfenadine for the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 1993Co-Authors: P Søhoel, B A Freng, J Kramer, S Poppe, R Rebo, F R Korsrud, O Garud, O J Woxen, A K OlsenAbstract:Background: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new topical (nasal spray and eye drops) H1-receptor antagonist, Levocabastine, with that of orally administered terfenadine for the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Methods: A total of 115 patients with documented birch pollen allergy were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial. Treatment was initiated immediately before the birch pollen season started and continued for a total of 8 weeks. Xylometrazoline (Otrivin) nasal spray was permitted as rescue medication. Results: The investigator's evaluation of symptoms showed similar effects for Levocabastine and terfenadine. Both the patients' and the investigator's global evaluations of ocular and nasal symptoms disclosed a somewhat higher percentage of good or excellent results for Levocabastine, but the differences were not statistically significant. Visual analog scale ratings from the patients' diaries showed better results for Levocabastine. Levocabastine was significantly more effective than terfenadine in relieving sneezing, rhinorrhea, lacrimation, itch, and burning sensation (p < 0.05). For some symptoms, Levocabastine was significantly more effective than terfenadine on days when the pollen count was high. There were no statistically significant differences in the use of rescue medication or in the incidence of adverse reactions reported in each treatment group. Conclusions: In the present study topical Levocabastine was frequently more effective than orally administered terfenadine for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Both drugs were well-tolerated.
-
A comparison of topical Levocabastine and sodium cromoglycate in the treatment of pollen-provoked allergic conjunctivitis.
Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 1993Co-Authors: A. B. Frostad, A K OlsenAbstract:A total of 71 patients with documented birch and grass pollen allergy participated in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study initiated to compare the long-term therapeutic efficacy of twice daily Levocabastine, a new topical H1-receptor blocker, with that of sodium cromoglycate four times daily in the treatment of pollen-provoked conjunctivitis. There was no statistically significant difference in therapeutic efficacy between the two treatment groups, although a positive trend in favour of Levocabastine was observed. Global evaluations of therapeutic efficacy were similar in both treatment groups. A total of 94% of Levocabastine-treated patients rated treatment to be excellent or good compared with 86% of patients in the sodium cromoglycate group. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the severity of allergic symptoms reported on the patient diary cards. Patients were permitted to use rescue medication (oral terfenadine and betamethasone nasal spray) if symptoms became severe. The use of rescue medication was lower in the Levocabastine group than in the sodium cromoglycate group. The mean number of days on which rescue medication was used was 12.8 and 26.9 in the two groups, respectively. The incidence, and type, of adverse reactions was similar in both patient groups. Levocabastine is well-tolerated and at least as effective as sodium cromoglycate in the treatment of pollen-provoked conjunctivitis.
Marianela De Azevedo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Review Paper Mediators of Inflammation 4, S21-S25 (1995)
2013Co-Authors: Marianela De AzevedoAbstract:Levocabastine is a new Hi-receptor antagonist specifically developed for the topical treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Clinical experience to date clearly demonstrates that Levocabastine eye drops and nasal spray are effective and well tolerated for the treatment of this allergic disorder. Analysis of data from a number of comparative trials reveals that topical Levocabastine is at least as effective as sodium cromoglycate and the oral antihistamine terfenadine, even on days with high pollen counts (> 50 3 pollen particles/m) when symptoms are severe. Coupled with a rapid onset of action and twice daily dosing, these findings make topical Levocabastine an attractive alternative to other therapeutic approaches as a first-line therapy for the treatment, of this common condition. Topical Levocabastine--a review of therapeutic efficacy compared with topical sodium cromoglycate and oral terfenadine on days with high pollen count
-
Topical Levocabastine-a review of therapeutic efficacy compared with topical sodium cromoglycate and oral terfenadine on days with high pollen counts.
Mediators of inflammation, 1995Co-Authors: Marianela De AzevedoAbstract:Levocabastine is a new H1-receptor antagonist specifically developed for the topical treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Clinical experience to date clearly demonstrates that Levocabastine eye drops and nasal spray are effective and well tolerated for the treatment of this allergic disorder. Analysis of data from a number of comparative trials reveals that topical Levocabastine is at least as effective as sodium cromoglycate and the oral antihistamine terfenadine, even on days with high pollen counts (≥ 50 pollen particles/m3 ) when symptoms are severe. Coupled with a rapid onset of action and twice daily dosing, these findings make topical Levocabastine an attractive alternative to other therapeutic approaches as a first-line therapy for the treatment, of this common condition.
-
Topical Levocabastine—a review of therapeutic efficacy compared with topical sodium cromoglycate and oral terfenadine on days with high pollen counts
Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 1Co-Authors: Marianela De AzevedoAbstract:Levocabastine is a new H1-receptor antagonist specifically developed for the topical treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Clinical experience to date clearly demonstrates that Levocabastine eye drops and nasal spray are effective and well tolerated for the treatment of this allergic disorder. Analysis of data from a number of comparative trials reveals that topical Levocabastine is at least as effective as sodium cromoglycate and the oral antihistamine terfenadine, even on days with high pollen counts (≥ 50 pollen particles/m3 ) when symptoms are severe. Coupled with a rapid onset of action and twice daily dosing, these findings make topical Levocabastine an attractive alternative to other therapeutic approaches as a first-line therapy for the treatment, of this common condition
Kathleen L. Krenzer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
emedastine ophthalmic solution 0 05 versus Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0 05 in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model
American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2000Co-Authors: Peter A. Netland, Charles Leahy, Kathleen L. KrenzerAbstract:Abstract PURPOSE: To compare a new ocular antihistamine, emedastine difumarate (Emadine Ophthalmic Solution 0.05%; Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas), with the marketed ocular antihistamine, Levocabastine hydrochloride (Livostin Ophthalmic Suspension 0.05%; CIBA Vision, Atlanta, Georgia), in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis after conjunctival allergen challenge. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-masked, randomized, contralateral eye study comparing emedastine 0.05% in one eye with Levocabastine 0.05% or emedastine vehicle (placebo) in the contralateral eye. Efficacy was determined 10 minutes and 2 hours after administration of study medications. Ocular itching and redness scores were recorded 3, 5, and 10 minutes after conjunctival allergen challenge. RESULTS: A total of 97 subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis and a positive response to a diagnostic test were evaluable for safety analysis, and 91 subjects were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Emadastine 0.05% was statistically significantly more effective than Levocabastine 0.05% in reducing ocular itching after conjunctival allergen challenge in both the 10-minute and the 2-hour challenge ( P CONCLUSIONS: After conjunctival allergen challenge, emadastine 0.05% is significantly more effective than Levocabastine 0.05% in reducing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. The two compounds are equivalent in controlling the conjunctival redness associated with allergic conjunctivitis.
-
Emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% versus Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.
American journal of ophthalmology, 2000Co-Authors: Peter A. Netland, Charles D. Leahy, Kathleen L. KrenzerAbstract:Abstract PURPOSE: To compare a new ocular antihistamine, emedastine difumarate (Emadine Ophthalmic Solution 0.05%; Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas), with the marketed ocular antihistamine, Levocabastine hydrochloride (Livostin Ophthalmic Suspension 0.05%; CIBA Vision, Atlanta, Georgia), in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis after conjunctival allergen challenge. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-masked, randomized, contralateral eye study comparing emedastine 0.05% in one eye with Levocabastine 0.05% or emedastine vehicle (placebo) in the contralateral eye. Efficacy was determined 10 minutes and 2 hours after administration of study medications. Ocular itching and redness scores were recorded 3, 5, and 10 minutes after conjunctival allergen challenge. RESULTS: A total of 97 subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis and a positive response to a diagnostic test were evaluable for safety analysis, and 91 subjects were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Emadastine 0.05% was statistically significantly more effective than Levocabastine 0.05% in reducing ocular itching after conjunctival allergen challenge in both the 10-minute and the 2-hour challenge ( P CONCLUSIONS: After conjunctival allergen challenge, emadastine 0.05% is significantly more effective than Levocabastine 0.05% in reducing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. The two compounds are equivalent in controlling the conjunctival redness associated with allergic conjunctivitis.