PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ira Finegold

Publications and source records attributed to Ira Finegold.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Efficacy and response with olopatadine versus epinastine in ocular allergic symptoms: a post hoc analysis of data from a conjunctival allergen challenge study.

OBJECTIVES: This post hoc analysis used data from a previous study to more precisely evaluate the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride and epinastine hydrochloride in alleviating various levels of severity of ocular itching and conjunctival redness and to determine whether there were any significant differences in the number of responders to treatment. METHODS: The original study was a randomized, double-masked allergen challenge comparison assessment. Adult patients with allergic conjunctivitis were screened (visits 1 and 2); those who exhibited positive allergic reactions at both visits were randomized to 1 of 3 groups. olopatadine/epinastine, olopatadine/placebo, or epinastine/placebo. At visit 3, each eye was treated with study medication, and then challenged with allergen. Itching, redness, and chemosis assessments were recorded. For the present post hoc analysis, each eye in the olopatadine/epinastine group was separately classified at each time point, based on the pretreatment severity of their symptom (itching) and sign (conjunctival redness) scores, as moderate, moderate/severe, or severe. Data were analyzed to determine responders (eyes with itching and/or conjunctival redness scores of 0 [none]). RESULTS: Of 96 patients screened, 66 were randomized to treatment (36 women, 30 men; mean age, 44.38 years [range, 20-71 years]). Olopatadine-treated eyes exhibited lower mean itching scores than epinastine-treated eyes in the moderate/severe and severe groups at all 3 time points (3, 5, and 7 minutes), with significance in the moderate/severe group at 5 minutes (P = 0.05) and in the severe group at 5 and 7 minutes (P = 0.017 and P = 0.02, respectively). Olopatadine-treated eyes had mean conjunctival redness scores similar to epinastine-treated eyes in all severity groups at all time points (10, 15, and 20 minutes) except in the severe group at 10 minutes (P = 0.03). On response analysis, for itching, the proportion of responders was significantly greater in the olopatadine group versus the epinastine group 7 minutes after challenge (27 [50.9%] vs 14 [26.4%]; P = 0.016). For conjunctival redness, the proportion of responders was significantly greater with olopatadine treatment versus epinastine treatment at 15 and 20 minutes after challenge (15 minutes, 12 [22.6%] vs 1 [1.9%] [P = 0.002]; 20 minutes, 10 [18.9%] vs 1 [1.9%] [P = 0.008]).

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Sublingual immunotherapy: a comprehensive review.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used with increasing frequency in Europe and is viewed with increasing interest by allergists in the United States. To address this interest, a Joint Task Force of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology's Immunotherapy and Allergy Diagnostic Committees reviewed the available literature on SLIT and prepared this report. The task force concluded that despite clear evidence that SLIT is an effective treatment, many questions remained unanswered, including effective dose, treatment schedules, and overall duration of treatment. Until these have been determined, an assessment of the cost/benefit ratio of the treatment cannot be made. SLIT does appear to be associated with few serious side effects, but it has not been administered in high-risk asthmatic patients, nor in the studies reviewed has it been administered as a mixture of non-cross-reacting allergens. Furthermore, there is currently no allergy extract approved for this use in the United States, nor is there a Current Procedural Terminology code for billing purposes. All of these factors should be given careful consideration by anyone contemplating initiating SLIT treatment for their allergic patients.

Administration, Sublingual↗
PubMed2006

Enhancing efficacy, safety, and convenience of immunotherapy: a workshop presentation.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss issues in delivering appropriate allergen immunotherapy. DATA SOURCES: Review of Immunotherapy Collegium II workshop presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. STUDY SELECTION: Topics discussed during Immunotherapy Collegium II. RESULTS: In the past, dosage schedules, levels, and rates of acceleration were linked to skin test results. The most recent published schedules for administration of immunotherapy do not reflect the initial reaction to the skin test, but leave it to the treating physician to factor in the results of testing with plans for administration in both increments and frequency. However, there are no official recommendations for physicians relevant to using a skin test to gauge patient sensitivity. Rather, allergists are advised to set up a maintenance concentrate and then make suitable dilutions when immunotherapy is initiated. CONCLUSION: Although recommendations are lacking regarding the use of a skin test to gauge patient sensitivity, official recommendations are clear in other areas of immunotherapy, such as the use of premedication. It is important that standard terms be adopted by all physicians who prescribe allergen immunotherapy and that modified allergens and/or oral immunotherapy be explored in the future to make immunotherapy more comfortable.

Desensitization, Immunologic↗
PubMed2004

Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Patanol) and epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution (Elestat) are two topical antiallergic agents. Olopatadine is indicated for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis that include itching, redness, tearing, lid swelling, and chemosis. Epinastine is indicated for the prevention of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine and epinastine in the prevention of itching and conjunctival redness in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally-controlled, single center allergen challenge study. Ninety-six subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were screened, and the 66 who responded to conjunctival allergen challenge at visits 1 and 2 were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups at visit 3 to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine in one eye and epinastine in the fellow eye, (2) olopatadine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye, and (3) epinastine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye. Five minutes after study drop instillation, subjects were bilaterally challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at Visits 1 and 2. Subjective itching assessments were given at 3 min, 5 min, and 7 min post challenge. Objective redness and chemosis assessments were made at 10 min, 15 min, and 20 min post challenge. Paired sample two-tailed t-tests were performed on the mean scores at each time point to assess statistical significance in the differences between treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES; RESULTS: Fifty-three subjects were randomized into the olopatadine/epinastine treatment group, the primary analysis group. Olopatadine treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean itching and conjunctival redness scores than the contralateral epinastine treated eyes, -0.19 (p = 0.003) and -0.52 (p < 0.001), respectively. Olopatadine treated eyes also exhibited significantly less chemosis -0.24 (p < 0.001), ciliary redness -0.55 (p < 0.001), and episcleral redness -0.58 (p < 0.001) than epinastine treated eyes. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than epinastine in controlling itching, redness and chemosis associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the CAC model.

Administration, Topical↗
PubMed2004

Immunotherapy in the age of anti-IgE.

Recent results of allergen immunotherapy research have continued to validate efficacy and have also demonstrated a truly preventive aspect for this treatment. This review summarizes the basic principles of effective allergen immunotherapy and highlights some of the advances that have been published in the past year. These studies show that allergen immunotherapy, when done appropriately and properly, not only causes a decrease in symptoms and use of medication as well as an improved quality of life, but that the progression of disease from allergic rhinitis to asthma is substantially decreased and the development of new allergies is diminished. In addition, laboratory studies continue to demonstrate significant changes in the immune system with a shift in the immune pathway from TH2 toward a TH1 response. The impact of anti-IgE as a therapeutic agent with allergen immunotherapy is also be reviewed.

Allergens↗
PubMed2003

Immunotherapy and asthma.

Immunotherapy has been identified as the only current available immunologic treatment that controls and prevents allergic illness. Recent studies indicate immunotherapy is effective, safe, and cost-efficient. Thus in the age of expensive polypharmacy with some degree of untoward reactions, immunotherapy may be helpful in selected allergic and asthmatic patients. Therefore, immunotherapy should be considered very early in the treatment planning because of the preventive and potentially longlasting clinical improvement.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Is immunotherapy effective in allergic disease?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to summarize the basic principles of effective immunotherapy, and to highlight some of the advances that have been published in the past year. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent findings show that immunotherapy, when performed appropriately and properly, not only causes a decrease in symptoms, use of medication and an improved quality of life, but also that the shift from allergic rhinitis to asthma is substantially decreased and the development of new allergies is diminished. In addition, laboratory studies continue to demonstrate significant changes in the immune system moving the patient towards a non-allergic immune function T helper type 2 cell to T helper type 1 cell shift. SUMMARY: In summary, recent research clearly continues to demonstrate the efficacy of immunotherapy not only as a therapeutic agent but as a preventive one as well.

Adolescent↗