The Experts below are selected from a list of 267 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Paul J Gomes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine Mast Cell Stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis a randomized double masked crossover study
    Clinical Therapeutics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, George W Ousler, Paul J Gomes
    Abstract:

    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, doublemasked 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 P 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.

  • Ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine/Mast Cell Stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized, double-masked crossover study.
    Clinical Therapeutics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, George W Ousler, Paul J Gomes
    Abstract:

    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, doublemasked 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 P 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.

Gail Torkildsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine Mast Cell Stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis a randomized double masked crossover study
    Clinical Therapeutics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, George W Ousler, Paul J Gomes
    Abstract:

    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, doublemasked 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 P 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.

  • Ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine/Mast Cell Stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized, double-masked crossover study.
    Clinical Therapeutics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, George W Ousler, Paul J Gomes
    Abstract:

    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, doublemasked 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 P 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.

Richard E Gray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Wouter J De Jonge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • novel Mast Cell Stabilizers in the treatment of postoperative ileus
    Gastroenterology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sjoerd H Van Bree, Susanne A Snoek, Sophie A Van Diest, Laura P B Elbers, Francisca W Hilbers, Suzanne Duijst, Jan Van Der Vliet, Rene M Van Den Wijngaard, Cathy Cailotto, Wouter J De Jonge
    Abstract:

    SPM 8 was applied to test anatomical regions of interest in the pINS, aINS and the aMCC while maintaining a family-wise error rate at p<.05. We also tested the possible effects of gut distension on processing speed and cognitive performance, indexed by mean reaction time and accuracy.Results:Subliminal or supraliminal gut distention during performance of the high or low processing load task did not significantly increase activity in pINS or aINS. However, during the high cognitive load task,supraliminal distension resulted in a reduction of aMCC activity. As expected, reaction time was longer during the high processing load compared to the low processing load task. However,subliminal and supraliminal balloon inflation did not alter reaction time or accuracy rates on the task. Conclusions:In healthy participants: 1)When attention is focused away from the gut, subliminal andmildly supraliminal rectal distension is not associated with activation of the primary interoceptive cortex, while supraliminal distension is associated with a reduction of aMCC activity during a high processing load task. These findings are consistent with possible engagement of descending inhibitory systems during the attention task, reducing interoceptive inflow to the brain.2) Low intensity visceral stimulation does not interfere with cognitive performance.

  • Novel Mast Cell Stabilizers in the Treatment of Postoperative Ileus
    Gastroenterology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sjoerd H Van Bree, Susanne A Snoek, Sophie A Van Diest, Laura P B Elbers, Francisca W Hilbers, Suzanne Duijst, Jan Van Der Vliet, Rene M Van Den Wijngaard, Cathy Cailotto, Wouter J De Jonge
    Abstract:

    SPM 8 was applied to test anatomical regions of interest in the pINS, aINS and the aMCC while maintaining a family-wise error rate at p

George W Ousler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine Mast Cell Stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis a randomized double masked crossover study
    Clinical Therapeutics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, George W Ousler, Paul J Gomes
    Abstract:

    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, doublemasked 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 P 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.

  • Ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine/Mast Cell Stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized, double-masked crossover study.
    Clinical Therapeutics, 2008
    Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, George W Ousler, Paul J Gomes
    Abstract:

    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, doublemasked 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 P 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.