The Experts below are selected from a list of 42567 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
M T Bergmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0 77 in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge model
Clinical Ophthalmology, 2015Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, Abhijit Narvekar, M T BergmannAbstract:BACKGROUND: Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (-1.52 to -1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (-1.50 to -1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (-1.58 to -1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.
-
efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0 77 in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge model
Clinical Ophthalmology, 2015Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, Abhijit Narvekar, M T BergmannAbstract:BACKGROUND: Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (-1.52 to -1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (-1.50 to -1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (-1.58 to -1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.
Sarah Devaney - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
making amends or making things worse clinical negligence reform and patient Redress in england
Legal Studies, 2007Co-Authors: Annemaree Farrell, Sarah DevaneyAbstract:This paper examines the government’s reform of the current system of clinical negligence litigation in England, focusing on an analysis of the Redress scheme for low value claims to be established under the NHS Redress Act 2006. The Act establishes a scheme to provide a package of Redress to patients in circumstances where they have suffered harm as a result of negligence during the course of medical treatment provided by the NHS. One of the British Government’s central aims in embarking upon reform in this area was to provide a low cost, quick and genuine alternative to the current clinical negligence litigation system. This paper critically analyses this reform of the current system by reference to an examination of what constitutes a just Redress scheme in the circumstances. Such analysis shows that the government has missed a golden opportunity to establish a scheme which truly ‘makes amends’ to patients who have suffered harm through medical treatment in the NHS. Instead, the scheme is likely to operate in practice as an administrative scheme for low value claims that serves the institutional and financial interests of the NHS, and therefore fails to address longstanding patient concerns over the provision of Redress arising out of harm suffered through medical treatment. As a result, patient confidence in the scheme is likely to be undermined in the long term.
-
making amends or making things worse clinical negligence reform and patient Redress in england
Social Science Research Network, 2007Co-Authors: Annemaree Farrell, Sarah DevaneyAbstract:This article examines the government's reform of the current system of clinical negligence litigation in England, focusing on an analysis of the Redress scheme for low value claims to be established under the NHS Redress Act 2006. The Act establishes a scheme to provide a package of Redress to patients in circumstances where they have suffered harm as a result of negligence during the course of medical treatment provided by the National Health Service (NHS). One of the British government's central aims in embarking upon reform in this area was to provide a low cost, quick and genuine alternative to the current clinical negligence litigation system. This article critically analyses this reform of the current system by reference to an examination of what constitutes a just Redress scheme in the circumstances. Such analysis shows that the government has missed a golden opportunity to establish a scheme which truly 'makes amends' to patients who have suffered harm through medical treatment in the NHS. Instead, the scheme is likely to operate in practice as an administrative scheme for low value claims that serves the institutional and financial interests of the NHS, and therefore fails to address longstanding patient concerns over the provision of Redress arising out of harm suffered through medical treatment. As a result, patient confidence in the scheme is likely to be undermined in the long term.
Gail Torkildsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0 77 in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge model
Clinical Ophthalmology, 2015Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, Abhijit Narvekar, M T BergmannAbstract:BACKGROUND: Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (-1.52 to -1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (-1.50 to -1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (-1.58 to -1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.
-
efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0 77 in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge model
Clinical Ophthalmology, 2015Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, Abhijit Narvekar, M T BergmannAbstract:BACKGROUND: Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (-1.52 to -1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (-1.50 to -1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (-1.58 to -1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.
Annemaree Farrell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
making amends or making things worse clinical negligence reform and patient Redress in england
Legal Studies, 2007Co-Authors: Annemaree Farrell, Sarah DevaneyAbstract:This paper examines the government’s reform of the current system of clinical negligence litigation in England, focusing on an analysis of the Redress scheme for low value claims to be established under the NHS Redress Act 2006. The Act establishes a scheme to provide a package of Redress to patients in circumstances where they have suffered harm as a result of negligence during the course of medical treatment provided by the NHS. One of the British Government’s central aims in embarking upon reform in this area was to provide a low cost, quick and genuine alternative to the current clinical negligence litigation system. This paper critically analyses this reform of the current system by reference to an examination of what constitutes a just Redress scheme in the circumstances. Such analysis shows that the government has missed a golden opportunity to establish a scheme which truly ‘makes amends’ to patients who have suffered harm through medical treatment in the NHS. Instead, the scheme is likely to operate in practice as an administrative scheme for low value claims that serves the institutional and financial interests of the NHS, and therefore fails to address longstanding patient concerns over the provision of Redress arising out of harm suffered through medical treatment. As a result, patient confidence in the scheme is likely to be undermined in the long term.
-
making amends or making things worse clinical negligence reform and patient Redress in england
Social Science Research Network, 2007Co-Authors: Annemaree Farrell, Sarah DevaneyAbstract:This article examines the government's reform of the current system of clinical negligence litigation in England, focusing on an analysis of the Redress scheme for low value claims to be established under the NHS Redress Act 2006. The Act establishes a scheme to provide a package of Redress to patients in circumstances where they have suffered harm as a result of negligence during the course of medical treatment provided by the National Health Service (NHS). One of the British government's central aims in embarking upon reform in this area was to provide a low cost, quick and genuine alternative to the current clinical negligence litigation system. This article critically analyses this reform of the current system by reference to an examination of what constitutes a just Redress scheme in the circumstances. Such analysis shows that the government has missed a golden opportunity to establish a scheme which truly 'makes amends' to patients who have suffered harm through medical treatment in the NHS. Instead, the scheme is likely to operate in practice as an administrative scheme for low value claims that serves the institutional and financial interests of the NHS, and therefore fails to address longstanding patient concerns over the provision of Redress arising out of harm suffered through medical treatment. As a result, patient confidence in the scheme is likely to be undermined in the long term.
Abhijit Narvekar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0 77 in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge model
Clinical Ophthalmology, 2015Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, Abhijit Narvekar, M T BergmannAbstract:BACKGROUND: Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (-1.52 to -1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (-1.50 to -1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (-1.58 to -1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.
-
efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0 77 in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge model
Clinical Ophthalmology, 2015Co-Authors: Gail Torkildsen, Abhijit Narvekar, M T BergmannAbstract:BACKGROUND: Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (-1.52 to -1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (-1.50 to -1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (-1.58 to -1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.
