scholarly journals Reproxalap Improves Signs and Symptoms of Allergic Conjunctivitis in an Allergen Chamber: A Real-World Model of Allergen Exposure

2022 ◽  
Vol Volume 16 ◽  
pp. 15-23
Author(s):  
David Clark ◽  
Paul Karpecki ◽  
Anne Marie Salapatek ◽  
John D Sheppard ◽  
Todd C Brady
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Allergen Exposure ◽  
World Model

Real-world model based validation of blending bed simulation techniques

2016 ◽  
pp. 261-266
Author(s):  
Michael P. Cipold ◽  
Pradyumn Kumar Shukla ◽  
Christian Autenrieth ◽  
Marvin Baral ◽  
Lukas Lihotzki
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
World Model ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Simulation Techniques

Efficacy of olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in reducing signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark B. Abelson ◽  
Paul J. Gomes ◽  
Terri Pasquine ◽  
Michael R. Edwards ◽  
Robert D. Gross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms

scholarly journals A prospective study of efficacy and safety of olopatadine versus azelastine in allergic conjunctivitis at a tertiary care hospital

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 1948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayanthi C. R. ◽  
Nanthini R. ◽  
. Vijayalakshmi
Keyword(s):  
Mast Cell ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
H1 Receptor ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

Background: Allergic conjunctivitis, an ocular surface inflammatory disease with significant social and economic impact affects approximately 25% of the general population. H1 receptor blockers, mast cell stabilizers and drugs that block cytokine and prostaglandin formation form the treatment armamentarium. Olopatadine hydrochloride and Azelastine hydrochloride are dual-acting selective H1 receptor antagonist with mast-cell stabilizing property. This study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% and Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% in allergic conjunctivitis amongst Indians.Methods: After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent, 120 patients diagnosed with allergic conjunctivitis fulfilling the inclusion/exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Study was done from April 2014 to June 2015 at Minto eye hospital. Study subjects were treated with olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% and Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% eye drops BD for 15 days. Ocular symptoms, instead of and signs and adverse events, if any were recorded on the day 8 and day 15 follow up visits.Results: At the end of the study period, the reduction in the ocular itching score from baseline was higher in the olopatadine group compared to the azelastine group (p<0.002). Similarly, the scores of ocular congestion (p<0.008), foreign body sensation (p<0.009), tearing (p<0.001), erythema (p<0.002) and chemosis (p<0.015) also showed larger reduction in the olopatadine treated patients. The common adverse events encountered in both the groups were stinging after instillation, burning, bitter taste and headache.Conclusions: In allergic conjunctivitis, both olopatadine and azelastine were found to be effective in relieving ocular signs and symptoms, but olopatadine was found to be superior in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability with minimal side effects.

Comparison of Topical 0.05% Levocabastine and 0.1% Lodoxamide in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Richard ◽  
C. Trinquand ◽  
E. Bloch-Michel ◽  
F. Favennec ◽  
L. Helleboid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Eyelid Edema ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Allergy Symptom

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.05% levocabastine eyedrops (H1 receptor blocker given BID + vehicle BID) compared with 0.1% lodoxamide ophthalmic solution (mast-cell stabilizer instilled QID) in reducing ocular signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Methods A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study was conducted in seven centres in France, in which 93 patients suffering from seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were randomly allocated to either 0.05% levocabastine (n = 47) or 0.1% lodoxamide (n = 46) in both eyes for a 14-day period. Efficacy was evaluated by subjective (prickling, burning, photophobia, itching) and objective (redness, chemosis, eyelid edema, tearing) sign scores at visits on days 7 and 14, and from data noted daily by the patient in a self-evaluation form. Safety was assessed as tolerance upon instillation and adverse event reports. Results The ocular allergy symptom and sign scores were comparable in the two treatment groups at baseline. With time, statistically and clinically significant reductions (p < 0.001) from baseline were observed for the subjective and objective scores, with no difference between the treatment groups. After the first instillation, signs were alleviated more rapidly in levocabastine-treated patients than in the lodoxamide group (p < 0.001). Overall assessments by the patient and investigator were similar in both groups. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% (BID) appears to be as effective and safe as lodoxamide 0.1% (QID) in the management of allergic conjunctivitis.

scholarly journals Comparison of efficacy of topical alcaftadine (0.25%) versus olopatadine (0.1%) in allergic conjunctivitis

2022 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 630-633
Author(s):  
Kiran Kumar L ◽  
M S Smitha Gowda
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Significant Efficacy ◽  
Group B ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

The most common atopic ocular condition in clinical practice is allergic conjunctivitis. One of the preferred treatment options for allergic Conjunctivitis is anti histamines eye drops. The study purpose is to compare the clinical efficacy between topical alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% in allergic conjunctivitis patients.A prospective, randomized, open label, parallel group, comparative study was conducted on 60 Patients with bilateral allergic conjunctivitis (30 in each group) after taking an informed written consentand was evaluated from May 2018 to November 2018. Patients were randomized into 2 groups of 30 each, group A received topical Alcaftadine 0.25% twice daily and patients in Group B received topical olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% twice daily for 2 weeks. The patients were evaluated on first visit (baseline) followed by 7 and 14 day after starting the treatment. At each visit signs and symptoms were evaluated and rated using a scale from 0-3(0-Absent, 1- mild, 2 moderate and 3- severe). The change from baseline in the mean scores of itching, hyperemia, photophobia and tearing on day 14 is the primary outcome variable.: The signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis were reduced by 2 weeks from baseline after using both the drugs. Relative significant efficacy was achieved in alcaftadine group for Itching, hyperemia and photophobia, but not for tearing (p=0.3). When compared to 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride, 0.25% alcaftadine is more effective in reducing the symptoms of all types of allergic conjunctivitis except those mentioned in exclusion criteria.

scholarly journals Think-aloud study about the diagnosis of chronic heart failure in Belgian general practice

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e025922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miek Smeets ◽  
Pieter De Witte ◽  
Sanne Peters ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Stefan Janssens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Natriuretic Peptide ◽  
Real World ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Diagnostic Reasoning ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Diagnostic Model ◽  
Think Aloud

ObjectivesDiagnosing chronic heart failure (CHF) in general practice is challenging. Our aim was to investigate how general practitioners (GPs) diagnose CHF in real-world patients.DesignThink-aloud study.MethodsFourteen GPs were asked to reason about four real-world CHF cases from their own practices. The cases were selected through a clinical audit. This was followed by an interview to get a deeper insight in their reasoning. The Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven was used as a guide in data analysis.ResultsWe developed a conceptual diagnostic model based on three important reasoning steps. First, GPs assessed the likelihood of CHF based on the presence or absence of HF signs and symptoms. However, this approach had serious limitations since GPs experienced many barriers in their clinical assessment, especially in comorbid elderly. Second, if CHF was considered based on step 1, the main influencing factor to take further diagnostic steps was the GPs’ perception of the added value of a validated CHF diagnosis in that specific case. Third, the choice and implications of these further diagnostic steps (N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, ECG and/or cardiac ultrasound) were influenced by the GPs’ knowledge about these tests and the quality of the cardiologists’ reports.ConclusionThis think-aloud study identified the factors that influenced the diagnostic reasoning about CHF in general practice. As a consequence, targets to improve this diagnostic reasoning were withheld: a paradigm shift towards an earlier and more comprehensive risk assessment with, among others, access to natriuretic peptide testing and convincing GPs of the added value of a validated HF diagnosis.

scholarly journals Management of Vataja abhishyanda (Allergic conjunctivitis) with Gutika anjana and Punarnavadi eye drops: A comparative clinical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 842-849
Author(s):  
Shashi Prakash Gupta ◽  
Vaghela D B
Keyword(s):  
Marked Improvement ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Complete Relief ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Body Sensation ◽  
Comparative Clinical Study ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Vataja Abhishyanda is characterized by Toda (Pricking pain), Sangharsha (foreign body sensation), Achchasruta (watery discharge), Alpa Shopha (mild chemosis), Vishushka Bhava (feeling of dryness), Parushya (roughness) etc which are very similar to the most of signs and symptoms of the Allergic Conjunctivitis. It is one of the most common type of eye allergy and is widely experienced by global population. Aims and Objective: . To evaluate and compare the efficacy of Punarnavadi eye drops and Gutika Anjana in the management of Vataja Abhishyanda(Allergic conjunctivitis). Materials and methods: Total 104 patients diagnosed with symptoms and signs of Vataja Abhishyanda were selected from the outpatient department of Shalakya tantra. The selected patients were assigned randomly into two groups, group A (Punarnavadi eye drop) having 51 and group B (Gutika Anjana) having 50 patients. Duration of treatment was 8weeks with follow up for one month after the trial. Result: In Group A, 96.08% got complete relief after the completion of treatment, 03.92% got marked improvement. In Group B, 98% got complete relief after the completion of treatment, 2% got marked improvement. Conclusion: Gutika Anjana shows better relief in all sign and symptoms on the basis of percentage. The reason may be Anjana has maximum absorption due to more contact of time with the tissue which is responsible for better bioavailability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document