May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Efficacy and Safety of Ophthalmic Epinastine for Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.M. Whitcup
    Allergan, Irvine, CA, United States
  • M. Abelson
    Schepens Eye Research Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
  • A. Slugg
    Ophthalmic Research Associates, North Andover, MA, United States
  • P. Gomes
    Ophthalmic Research Associates, North Andover, MA, United States
  • R. Bradford
    Ophthalmic Research Associates, North Andover, MA, United States
  • J. Lue
    Ophthalmic Research Associates, North Andover, MA, United States
  • B. Kim
    Ophthalmic Research Associates, North Andover, MA, United States
  • R. Schiffman
    Ophthalmic Research Associates, North Andover, MA, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.M. Whitcup, Allergan E; M. Abelson, Allergan F, C; A. Slugg, Ophthalmic Research Associates E; P. Gomes, Ophthalmic Research Associates E; R. Bradford, Allergan E; J. Lue, Allergan E; B. Kim, Allergan E; R. Schiffman, Allergan E.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 3729. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.M. Whitcup, M. Abelson, A. Slugg, P. Gomes, R. Bradford, J. Lue, B. Kim, R. Schiffman; Efficacy and Safety of Ophthalmic Epinastine for Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):3729.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: We conducted a multi-center, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled clinical trial of safety and efficacy of epinastine HCl 0.05% ophthalmic solution for patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). Methods: Patients diagnosed with SAC and a positive result from a conjunctival antigen challenge screen were randomly assigned to receive epinastine HCl 0.05% (n=118), levocabastine 0.05% (n=118), or vehicle of epinastine (n=62) administered in both eyes, twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was ocular itching graded on a scale of 0 (absent) to 4 (extremely severe) during the two seven day periods of maximal pollen counts. Results: Median average worst daily ocular itch scores were 0.45 for epinastine, 0.60 for levocabastine, and 0.85 for vehicle. Epinastine-treated patients reported significantly less ocular itching than patients receiving vehicle (P=0.045). Epinastine ocular itch scores were numerically lower to that of levocabastine, however, the difference was not statistically significant. Biomicroscopy findings, changes in visual acuity, and adverse events did not differ clinically or statistically between treatment groups. Conclusions: Control of SAC ocular itch afforded by epinastine was significantly better than vehicle, and numerically better than levocabastine. Epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution was safe and well-tolerated in SAC patients.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: tre • conjunctivitis • drug toxicity/drug effects 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×