Emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% versus levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model

• Published in: American journal of ophthalmology Vol. 130; no. 6; pp. 717 - 723
• Main Authors: Netland, Peter A, Leahy, Charles, Krenzer, Kathleen L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.12.2000; Elsevier
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Allergens - adverse effects; Benzimidazoles - administration & dosage; Benzimidazoles - adverse effects; Benzimidazoles - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Conjunctiva - drug effects; Conjunctivitis, Allergic - drug therapy; Conjunctivitis, Allergic - etiology; Double-Blind Method; Drug Evaluation; Eye; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists - administration & dosage; Histamine H1 Antagonists - adverse effects; Histamine H1 Antagonists - therapeutic use; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Piperidines - administration & dosage; Piperidines - adverse effects; Piperidines - therapeutic use; Prospective Studies; Safety; Suspensions; Treatment Outcome; Emedastine; Human; Immunopathology; Allergy; Suspension; Conjunctiva disease; Conjunctivitis; Levocabastine; Antihistaminic; Antiallergic; Eye disease; Chemotherapy; Ophthalmic preparation; Treatment; Antagonist; H1 Histamine receptor; Solution; Allergen
• ISSN: 0002-9394; 1879-1891
• DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00689-9

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 < .05). Emedastine 0.05% and levocabastine 0.05% were statistically equivalent in reducing conjunctival redness after conjunctival allergen challenge, although emedastine tended to be more efficacious than levocabastine at every observation time point. 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.