title: Emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% versus levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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.
authors: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee 38163, USA.
authors: P A
authors: PA
authors: Netland
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Leahy
authors: K L
authors: KL
authors: Krenzer
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000485:Allergens / Q000009:adverse effects*; D001562:Benzimidazoles / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003228:Conjunctiva / Q000187:drug effects*; D003233:Conjunctivitis, Allergic / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000209:etiology; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D004341:Drug Evaluation; D005260:Female; D006634:Histamine H1 Antagonists / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009883:Ophthalmic Solutions; D010880:Piperidines / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012449:Safety; D013535:Suspensions; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D000485:Allergens; D001562:Benzimidazoles; D006634:Histamine H1 Antagonists; D009883:Ophthalmic Solutions; D010880:Piperidines; D013535:Suspensions; C043345:emedastine; C047340:levocabastine