SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “OPHTHALMIC SOLUTIONS”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of lodoxamide 0.1% ophthalmic solution and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension in vernal keratoconjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lodoxamide 0.1% ophthalmic solution with levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension, each given four times daily (QID) for three months to patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC). METHODS: The study was conducted multinationally according to a triple-masked parallel design in 95 VKC patients, with assessments at baseline then monthly during the three months of treatment. The primary efficacy variables were a Physician's Clinical Judgement Scale and a Patient's Overall Judgement Scale of improvements from baseline. Signs and symptoms of VKC were also assessed. RESULTS: Both primary efficacy variables showed significantly greater overall improvement of VKC from baseline with lodoxamide than levocabastine. The superiority of lodoxamide was demonstrated by the Physician's Clinical Judgement Scale at months 2 and 3, with a trend, at month 1, and by the Patient's Overall Judgement Scale at months 1, 2 and 3. All signs and symptoms of VKC improved significantly from baseline at all time points, regardless of treatment (p<0.001). However, relative to levocabastine, conjunctival discharge, photophobia and lacrimation were significantly reduced by lodoxamide at months 1, 2 and 3, itching at months 2 and 3, and bulbar conjunctiva at month 3. The temporal improvement of superior tarsal papillae did not differ significantly between treatments. Both were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Lodoxamide 0.1% and levocabastine 0.05% eye drops, instilled four times daily for three months, were effective, safe and well tolerated by patients with VKC, but lodoxamide was significantly superior to levocabastine.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

Safety and efficacy comparison of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution compared to levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension in pediatric subjects with allergic conjunctivitis. Emadine Study Group.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and tolerance of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution compared to levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension in pediatric subjects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a randomized, double-masked, parallel controlled study, emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution BID was compared to levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension BID, for control of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis in pediatric subjects ages 3-16. Subjects who met all inclusion and exclusion criteria received masked study medication with instructions to instill drops twice daily, in the morning and evening. A diary was completed by the parents four times daily for the first two and last two weeks of the study. Treatment lasted 42 days. Drug efficacy was assessed at the initial administration in the office at Day 0 and after 3, 7, 14, 30 and 42 days. RESULTS: Overall results showed both drugs have an effect and that emedastine was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to levocabastine for the relief of chemosis on Days 14, 30 and 42; of itching on follow-up Days 30 and 42 (p < 0.05); of redness on Days 30 and 42; for eyelid swelling on Days 14 and 30; and for physician's impression score on Days 7, 14, 30 and 42. CONCLUSION: These results confirm previous preclinical and clinical data on the potent and long acting efficacy of this promising new ophthalmic anti-allergic drug, emedastine in pediatric subjects.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

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

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.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1983

Trimethoprim-polymyxin B ophthalmic solution in the treatment of presumptive bacterial conjunctivitis--a multicentre trial of its efficacy versus neomycin-polymyxin B-gramicidin and chloramphenicol ophthalmic solutions.

Two-hundred and thirty patients with a diagnosis of presumptive bacterial conjunctivitis were assessed in a randomized double-blind multicentre trial. In two of the centres the patients had been treated with either trimethoprim-polymyxin B or neomycin-polymyxin B-gramicidin ophthalmic solution. In the other two centres the patients had been treated with either trimethoprim-polymyxin B or chloramphenicol ophthalmic solution. All of the preparations used were shown to be effective and very few adverse reactions were encountered. No significant difference in clinical efficacy could be demonstrated between trimethoprim-polymyxin B and neomycin-polymyxin B -gramicidin but trimethoprim-polymyxin B was found to be significantly better (P = 0.03) than chloramphenicol in reducing signs and symptoms.

Chloramphenicol↗

PubMed2002

Comparison of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and loteprednol etabonate 0.2% ophthalmic suspension in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and loteprednol etabonate 0.2% ophthalmic suspension are topical antiallergic agents indicated for treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), respectively. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine, loteprednol, and placebo in inhibiting the early-phase allergic reaction (within 30 minutes) after conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC). METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked, parallel-controlled CAC study. It consisted of 3 visits, with CAC performed at visit 1, confirmation and randomization at visit 2, and evaluation of the treatments at visit 3. Subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were randomized to receive olopatadine, loteprednol, or placebo in a 2:2:1 ratio. Because loteprednol requires a loading period to achieve maximum efficacy, subjects assigned to this treatment received loteprednol QID bilaterally for a 14-day period; the olopatadine and placebo groups received placebo QID bilaterally during this period. At the evaluation visit, subjects received 1 drop of the assigned treatment in each eye. Fifteen minutes later, they were challenged with allergen. Subjects evaluated itching at 3, 5, and 10 minutes after challenge using a standardized 5-point scale; the investigator evaluated redness at 10, 15, and 20 minutes after challenge. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at baseline and after the 14-day loading period. Nonparametric analyses were performed on the change from visit 2 to visit 3 in mean itching and redness scores for each time point, and on the change in mean IOP from visit 1 to visit 3. RESULTS: Fifty subjects (86% white; 42% male, 58% female; age range, 21-71 years) were enrolled and completed the study (20 olopatadine, 20 loteprednol, 10 placebo). The allergens to which subjects reacted were ragweed pollen (40%), cat hair or dander (30%), grass pollen (24%), and tree pollen (6%). The difference in inhibition of itching and redness was clinically significant (> or =1 unit difference) and statistically significant (P < 0.05) in favor of olopatadine compared with loteprednol at all 3 time points. The loteprednol group had a statistically significant increase in IOP after 2 weeks of treatment (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the population studied, olopatadine was more efficacious than loteprednol in reducing the acute signs and symptoms of SAC during the early phase of the ocular allergic reaction and appeared to be better tolerated.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Comparative efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of olopatadine and levocabastine in reducing ocular allergic itching and vascular hyperemia (redness) induced by conjunctival allergen challenge. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was a randomized, double-masked, contralateral study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. At Visit 1, subjects with a positive allergen skin test and a history of allergic conjunctivitis were administered increasing concentrations of allergen until at least a moderate grade 2 ocular itching and conjunctival redness response was obtained in both eyes. Allergic signs were graded on standardized 0-4 scales. Subjects who reacted positively were re-challenged at Visit 2 with the pre-determined concentration of allergen. Subjects who again responded with at least a grade 2 bilateral ocular itching and conjunctival redness score at Visit 2 were eligible for drug evaluation. At Visit 3, subjects received olopatadine in one eye and levocabastine in the contralateral eye according to a computer-generated randomization scheme generated prior to commencement of the study. Ocular discomfort was then graded in both eyes. Subjects were bilaterally challenged with the predetermined concentration of allergen 27 min after topical drug administration, such that the first post-challenge assessment was made 30 min post-drug instillation. Allergic signs and symptoms were evaluated at 3 min, 10 min, and 20 min postchallenge and safety and efficacy analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight subjects received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Ocular itching scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at 3 min and 10 min post-challenge (p < 0.001). Ocular redness scores for olopatadine were significantly lower than levocabastine at all time points post-challenge (p < 0.0001). Of all subjects, 4.41% reported ocular discomfort in the olopatadine eye and 26.5% in the levocabastine treated eye. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine treated eyes had significantly less itching and redness than levocabastine treated eyes after conjunctival allergen challenge. Olopatadine was also associated with less discomfort upon instillation than levocabastine.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1979

Survey on eye comfort in aircraft: II. Use of ophthalmic solutions.

Flight attendants frequently use ophthalmic solutions (eye-drops) to relieve their eye discomfort while working in the aircraft. The purpose of this paper is to present some insight concerning the use of ophthalmic solutions by flight attendants. This paper follows Part I, a survey that evaluated some of the environmental conditions in the aircraft that influenced eye comfort. A questionnaire was developed in conjunction with the Air Safety Department of the Association of Flight Attendants. The common eye problem characterized by conjunctival redness and eye irritation occurred with 95% of the 774 respondents. Furthermore, 60% of these respondents indicated that they have used eyedrops while in flight. The majority of the respondents were using an ocular decongestant; however, this author suggests that the use of artificial tears would be more effective in relieving eye discomfort in the aircraft.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability between two gel-forming timolol maleate ophthalmic solutions in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: To compare two gel-forming timolol maleate ophthalmic solutions, Timoptol XE and Lizmon TG, in regard to efficacy and tolerability in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension by means of a patient-masked prospective randomized crossover study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension under treatment with antiglaucoma ophthalmic solutions including 0.5% twice-daily timolol maleate participated in this study. Only timolol maleate was withdrawn and either Timoptol XE or Lizmon TG was randomly allocated. After instillation for 1 month, the other ophthalmic solution was subsequently instilled for another month. Routine ophthalmic examination including slit-lamp examination and intraocular pressure (IOP) monitoring was conducted before instillation of gel-forming ophthalmic solutions and just after completing the instillation of each ophthalmic solution. Patient questionnaire surveys were also performed just after completing the instillation of each ophthalmic solution. RESULTS: Mean IOP, just before the withdrawal of timolol ophthalmic solution, was 16.4 +/- 2.9 mm Hg. At the end of Timoptol XE or Lizmon TG instillation, mean IOPs were 16.3 +/- 2.5 or 16.3 +/- 3.0 mm Hg, respectively. The results of the questionnaire survey showed no significant difference between Timoptol XE and Lizmon TG in regard to all survey items. Twenty-nine patients (78.4%) preferred to use gel-forming timolol solutions rather than twice-daily timolol ophthalmic solution. The presence of concurrently used ophthalmic solutions did not effect the incidences of subjective symptoms. The incidences of objective adverse effects were not significantly different between two gel-forming timolol ophthalmic solutions. CONCLUSION: Both gel-forming timolol ophthalmic solutions could be good choices for glaucoma treatment.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory ophthalmic solution on intraocular pressure reduction by latanoprost.

AIM: To investigate the effects of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ophthalmic solution on latanoprost induced intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction using normal volunteers. METHODS: This study was conducted as a prospective and observer masked clinical trial. 13 normal volunteers were enrolled. After measurement of basal IOP and ophthalmic examination, latanoprost ophthalmic solution was initially administered to both eyes once daily. Four weeks later, an NSAID ophthalmic solution, sodium 2-amino-3-(4-bromobenzoyl) phenylacetate sesquihydrate (refer to bromfenac sodium hydrate), was co-administered to one randomly selected eye (NSAID group) twice daily for 2 weeks. The other eye was employed as a control (non-NSAID group). After withdrawal of the NSAID ophthalmic solution, latanoprost ophthalmic solution was continuously administered for another 2 weeks and was then withdrawn. After a 4 week washout, only bromfenac sodium hydrate ophthalmic solution was administered to the eyes of the NSAID group for 2 weeks. During the study period, ophthalmic examination, including IOP measurement was performed in an observer masked fashion. RESULTS: Before initiation of bromfenac sodium hydrate, baseline IOPs of the non-NSAID group and the NSAID group were 15.73 (SD 1.97) mm Hg and 15.86 (2.06) mm Hg, respectively (p=0.88). Although latanoprost ophthalmic solution significantly reduced IOP in both groups, co-administration of bromfenac sodium hydrate significantly inhibited latanoprost induced IOP reduction compared with the non-NSAID group. The IOPs of the non-NSAID and NSAID groups were 10.18 (1.17) mm Hg and 11.63 (1.35) mm Hg with a 2 week co-administration, respectively (p <0.01). Withdrawal of bromfenac sodium hydrate ophthalmic solution diminished the difference between the two groups. Re-administration of bromfenac sodium ophthalmic solution only did not affect IOP. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that NSAID ophthalmic solution may interfere with IOP reduction by latanoprost ophthalmic solution in normal volunteers and that we should take this into account when treating patients with glaucoma using latanoprost ophthalmic solution.

Adult↗

PubMed2007

Effect of ophthalmic solution components on acrylic intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of ophthalmic solution components on the surface of acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Department of Opthalmology, Showa University School of Medicine. METHODS: Measurement of the contact angles of ophthalmic solutions on 3 acrylic IOLs was performed. The solutions were diclofenac sodium (Diclod), bromfenac sodium (Bronuck), betamethasone phosphate (Rinderon), dibekacin sulfate (Panimycin), polysorbate 80 (Tween 20), benzalkonium chloride, chlorobutanol, methylparahydroxybenzoate, and propylparahydroxybenzoate. The IOLs were incubated at 35 degrees C for 2 weeks in undiluted ophthalmic solutions and in 1:10 dilutions of ophthalmic solution components. The IOLs were sectioned and observed by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The contact angle of Diclod and Bronuck solutions was the smallest. The contact angle of Rinderon and Panimycin was similar to that of distilled water. Scanning electron microscopy examination of IOLs incubated in ophthalmic solution components showed intralenticular changes. The IOLs immersed in ophthalmic solutions did not show any change, even after extended incubation. CONCLUSION: The chemical components of ophthalmic solutions, such as surfactants and solvents, permeate acrylic IOLs, suggesting the potential for long-term adverse effects of eyedrops in pseudophakic eyes.

Acrylic Resins↗

PubMed2002

Impact of deep freezing on the stability of 25 mg/ml vancomycin ophthalmic solutions.

For the treatment of certain eye infections, ophthalmic solutions 'laced' with 25 mg/ml vancomycin are sometimes prepared. Their physical and chemical stability and the maintenance of their sterility were studied after deep freezing at -20 +/- 2 degrees C and thawing, followed or not by refrigeration for 48 h at 4 +/- 2 degrees C. Physical and chemical analysis comprised visual inspection turbidity, determination of pH and osmolality, and assay of vancomycin by high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. For microbiological analysis a 25 mg/ml vancomycin ophthalmic solution was filtered through two membranes and cultured on trypticase-soy and Sabouraud-glucose solid media. Any colonies were then counted. These physical, chemical and microbiological analyses demonstrated the stability of 25 mg/ml vancomycin ophthalmic solutions in 5% glucose deep frozen at -20 +/- 2 degrees C for 3 months. The vancomycin concentration varied by no more than 5% of the initial concentration, and no breakdown product was evidenced. Neither pH (mean=3.8 +/- 0.1) nor osmolality (mean=318.3 +/- 5.6 mOsm/kg) varied significantly, and remained compatible with intraocular administration. No particle or bacterial combination was found in the course of the study. The thawing procedure (at ambient temperature or under warm running water from a tap) did not modify the stability of the eye drops. Likewise, storage in a refrigerator for 48 h after thawing did not modify stability. The advantage of storing vancomycin 25 mg/ml ophthalmic solutions for 3 months in deep freeze is that a stock of chemically and microbiologically controlled preparations can be held ready for administration to patients, thereby allowing prompter dispensing, as the eye drops are not made up extemporaneously, while the improved control over production ensures that patients receive solutions of constant quality, as every batch prepared is systematically inspected.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed1992

[Evaluation of the efficacy of antimicrobial drugs in ophthalmic solutions].

The antimicrobial efficacy of preservatives in ophthalmic solutions was tested. Five strains were used as challenge organisms. They represented bacteria, yeasts and molds. Sixty per cent of the ophthalmic solutions showed a good preservation against S. aureus ATCC 6538, according to the standards and in 40% of cases, the bacteria disappeared on the second week. Against E. coli ATCC 8739, 90% of the samples were well preserved and in 10% the bacteria disappeared by the second week. Against Ps. aeruginosa ATCC 9027, C. Albicans ATCC 10231 and Asp. niger ATCC 16404, the ophthalmic solutions showed a 100% preservation. The majority of the products showed a satisfactory preservation. They contained declared preservatives and sometimes combinations of two antimicrobial agents.

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin ophthalmic solutions.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and norfloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and blepharitis were compared in a double masked randomised study. A total of 131 patients, 65 treated with ciprofloxacin (42 with conjunctivitis and 23 with blepharitis) and 66 treated with norfloxacin (39 with conjunctivitis and 27 with blepharitis) were enrolled in the study at five centres in France. In the efficacy population, pathogens were eradicated or reduced in 96% (24/25) of patients in the ciprofloxacin group and 89% (24/27) in the norfloxacin group. There was no difference between treatments with regard to eradication of particular pathogens. In the efficacy population, clinical cure or improvement was seen in 96% of the patients (24/25 in the ciprofloxacin group and 26/27 in the norfloxacin group). There were no significant differences between ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin with respect to improvements in four symptoms or ten clinical signs. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported and both ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin were well tolerated.

Anti-Infective Agents↗

PubMed1997

Stability of acetylcysteine in an extemporaneously compounded ophthalmic solution.

The stability of acetylcysteine in an extemporaneously compounded ophthalmic solution was studied. Acetylcysteine 10% ophthalmic solution containing 0.025% disodium edetate and 0.5% chlorobutanol in an artificial tears base was prepared and stored at 2-8 degrees C in clear, 15-mL, low-density polyethylene dropper bottles. At 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 60 days, a 1-mL sample was removed from each bottle and analyzed for acetylcysteine concentration by high-performance liquid chromatography. Another set of 10% acetylcysteine solutions containing 0.025%, 0.050%, 0.075%, or 0.10% disodium edetate were prepared, stored at room temperature (23-25 degrees C), and analyzed at 0, 7, 15, 30, 40, and 50 days. In the solutions containing 0.025% disodium edetate, acetylcysteine was stable for 60 days at 2-8 degrees C but for less than 7 days at 23-25 degrees C. In the solutions containing 0.75% and 0.10% disodium edetate, acetylcysteine was stable for 40 and 50 days, respectively, at 23-25 degrees C. Acetylcysteine in a 10% acetylcysteine ophthalmic solution containing 0.025% disodium edetate and 0.5% chlorobutanol in an artificial tears base was stable for 60 days at 2-8 degrees C.

Acetylcysteine↗

PubMed2001

[Evaluation and multivariate statistical analysis of factors influencing patient adherence to ophthalmic solutions].

In this study, factors influencing patients adherence to ophthalmic solutions were investigated. Seventy-one subjects (aged 62.3 +/- 15.5 years) were randomly selected from patients admitted to the Ophthalmology Department at Hiroshima University Hospital. The patients (n = 71) completed questionnaires, which were evaluated by clinical pharmacists. The patient group to which the ophthalmic solutions were applied once or twice daily was more compliant than other patient groups (p = 0.00057). A multivariate statistical analysis revealed that the factors influencing patients adherence were the number of ophthalmic solutions used, patient age, taste, administration intervals, the number of drops used, and hand washing before the application of ophthalmic solutions. Patients who understood the significance of the medication made fewer mistakes than those who understood only the route of administration but not the significance. In conclusion, our study shows that patient counseling should emphasis the significance of the administered medicine as well as the route of administration.

Aged↗

PubMed1991

Stability of gentamicin sulfate and tobramycin sulfate in extemporaneously prepared ophthalmic solutions at 8 degrees C.

The stability of gentamicin sulfate and tobramycin sulfate in fortified ophthalmic solutions stored under refrigeration was studied. Fortified gentamicin ophthalmic solution and fortified tobramycin ophthalmic solution were prepared to a final theoretical concentration of 13.6 mg/mL by using commercially available ophthalmic and injectable solutions. Volumes of each solution were packaged in plastic bottles and refrigerated at 4-8 degrees C. Samples of each solution were analyzed by fluorescence polarization immunoassay on days 0 (before refrigeration), 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 28, 63, and 91. To validate the method, identical solutions were prepared, stored under refrigeration at 4-8 degrees C, and analyzed by a stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatographic assay on days 0 (before refrigeration), 9, 28, 56, and 91. Fluorescence polarization immunoassay showed the mean concentrations of gentamicin and tobramycin on day 91 to be 104.4% and 97.4%, respectively, of the time 0 concentrations; the difference was not significant in either case. HPLC validated these results; the mean concentration of gentamicin and tobramycin on day 91 was 103.3% and 101.2%, respectively, of the mean day 0 concentrations. Gentamicin and tobramycin in ophthalmic solutions prepared by mixing ophthalmic and injectable products and stored in plastic bottles at 4-8 degrees C were stable for three months.

Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid↗

PubMed1995

Effect of sodium hyaluronate ophthalmic solution on peripheral staining of rigid contact lens wearers.

We evaluated the efficacy of sodium hyaluronate ophthalmic solutions on 3 and 9 o'clock staining with rigid contact lens wearers in a double masked multicenter study involving four institutions and 43 patients. Both sodium hyaluronate (0.1%) and control ophthalmic solutions (artificial tears) without preservative were used. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. The test group received sodium hyaluronate ophthalmic solution, and the control group received artificial tears as a control ophthalmic solution. The agents were instilled six times per day for 2 weeks while patients wore contact lenses. Although subjective symptoms improved similarly in the two groups, slit lamp observation, corneal staining, and anterior segment photography demonstrated improved results in eyes having received sodium hyaluronate ophthalmic solutions. We conclude that sodium hyaluronate ophthalmic solution is effective and safe for treating 3 and 9 o'clock staining in rigid contact lens wearers.

Administration, Topical↗

PubMed2003

A placebo-controlled comparison of ketotifen fumarate and nedocromil sodium ophthalmic solutions for the prevention of ocular itching with the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution and nedocromil sodium 2.0% ophthalmic solution are 2 topical antiallergic medications with different modes of action and efficacy profiles. Both solutions are indicated for ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, safety, and comfort of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution and nedocromil sodium 2.0% ophthalmic solution for the prevention of ocular itching, using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. METHODS: This was a single-center, double-masked, contralateral, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled CAC clinical trial. Subjects aged >10 years with a history of allergic hypersensitivity who responded to the CAC at screening visits 1 and 2 qualified for randomization at visit 3. At visit 3 (day 21) and visit 4 (day 35), subjects received 1 of 3 treatments: ketotifen, nedocromil, or placebo (artificial tears), randomized by eye. Allergen challenges were conducted at 5 minutes posttreatment dose (visit 3) and 12 hours posttreatment dose (visit 4). At each visit, subjects evaluated their ocular itching every 30 seconds for 20 minutes. At visit 4, subjects evaluated the comfort of the medication immediately after instillation, at 30 seconds after instillation, and at l, 2, 5, and 10 minutes after instillation. The subjects were also queried about overall eyedrop comfort by choosing from descriptive terms and about overall eyedrop preference based on comfort and perceived efficacy. RESULTS: Eighty-five subjects were screened for this study. Fifty-nine (28 males, 31 females; mean age, 38.7 years) qualified and were randomized to receive study medications. Ketotifen-treated eyes experienced significantly less ocular itching induced by CAC than nedocromil-treated eyes and those that received placebo at both the 5-minute and 12-hour posttreatment allergen challenges (all P < 0.05). Nedocromil-treated eyes showed no statistical or clinical differences from placebo at any time point. Ketotifen-treated eyes showed no differences in comfort from those that received placebo but were significantly more comfortable than nedocromil-treated eyes at 1, 2, 5, and 10 minutes after instillation (all P < 0.05). On the basis of comfort and subjective efficacy, 60% of subjects preferred ketotifen, 21% preferred nedocromil, and 19% preferred placebo. CONCLUSION: Ketotifen was significantly more effective and comfortable than nedocromil at both 5 minutes and 12 hours after administration in this CAC model.

Adolescent↗