Search

Purpose Early detection and treatment of age-related macular degeneration require a clear understanding of the early progress of the disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether minimal macular ophthalmoscopic changes corresponded to changes in visual function. Methods Color macular photos from a group of older subjects who were classified as grade 0 on AREDS simplified grading were further evaluated by a retinal specialist using 5x magnification for possible minimal macular anomalies. Group 0-A (N = 15) were defined as subjects with no visible macular anomalies while Group 0-B (N = 19) comprised subjects for whom minimal macular mottling, pigment changes or very small drusen (< 63 µm) were observed in the study eye. All subjects had best VA of 20/25 or better and had no evidence of other retinal diseases in the study eye. All subjects underwent a series of visual function tests such as standard ETDRS VA, low luminance ETDRS VA, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, variable contrast flicker (VCF) sensitivity, and reading speed (words per minute, wpm) using both MNRead and low luminance reading on a tablet. Results There was no significant difference between the mean age between the two groups (74.8 ± 5.2 years for 0-A vs 74.5 ± 4.4 for 0-B, p = 0.82). None of the visual function tests identified any significant difference between the two groups. Mean ETDRS VA was 0.0 ± 0.11 for 0-A subjects and 0.08 ± 0.12 for 0-B (p = 0.063). Mean Pelli-Robson log contrast sensitivity was 1.75 ± 0.29 for 0-A and 1.78 ± 0.17 for the 0-B group (p = 0.73). VCF threshold was 0.47 ± 0.25 for 0-A and 0.43 ± 0.22 for 0-B (p = 0.64). Reading speed using MNRead was 214 ± 47.4 wpm for 0-A and 210 ± 64.7 for 0-B (p = 0.85). Low luminance tablet reading speed was 137 ± 71.8 wpm for 0-A and 151 ± 39.4 (0-B) (p = 0.49). Conclusion A panel of psychophysical tests did not demonstrate significant differences between subjects with and without minimal macular changes.

John D Rodriguez,1 Keith Lane,1 David A Hollander,1,2 Aron Shapiro,1 Sunita Saigal,1 Andrew J Hertsenberg,1 Garrick Wallstrom,3 Divya Narayanan,1 Endri Angjeli,1 Mark B Abelson1,4 1Ora, Inc., Andover, MA, USA; 2Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 3Statistics andData Corporation, Tempe, AZ, USA; 4Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Purpose: To identify parameters from cone function and recovery after photostress that detect functional deficits in early non-exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and to determine the repeatability of these parameters. Methods: Cone-mediated visual function recovery after photostress was examined in three groups of subjects: young normal subjects (ages 20–29; N=8), older normal subjects (ages 50–90; N=9), and early non-exudative AMD subjects (ages 50–90; N=12). Eight AMD and four normal subjects were retested 1year after the initial evaluation. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity (VA) and parameters of cone function (baseline cone sensitivity and cone recovery half-life following photobleach) were measured and compared between AMD and normal subjects. Short-term repeatability was assessed for each subject’s initial evaluation. Long-term repeatability was assessed by comparing outcomes from the initial evaluation and 1-year follow-up. Results: The mean baseline cone threshold was significantly worse in subjects with early AMD compared to older normal subjects (-1.80±0.04 vs -1.57±0.06log cd/m2 p=0.0027). Moreover, the baseline cone threshold parameter exhibited good short-term (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.88) and long-term (ICC=0.85) repeatability in all subjects. The cone intercept parameter and ETDRS VA were not significantly different between AMD and older normal subject groups. Cone recovery half-life was significantly different between older normal and AMD subject groups (p=0.041). Neither ETDRS VA nor cone function parameters were significantly different for any group at the 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: The baseline cone threshold shows potential as a novel parameter to assess visual dysfunction in early AMD. This outcome consistently detected deficits in AMD subjects, and differentiated them from age-matched controls with high test–retest repeatability. Keywords: AMD, photobleach, photoreceptor, cone recovery, Ora LUX

Blink is a complex phenomenon that is profoundly affected by diverse endogenous and exogenous stimuli. It has been studied in the context of cognition, emotional, and psychological states, as an indicator of fatigue and sleepiness, particularly in the automobile and transportation industry, in visual tasking, and finally, as it relates to tear film stability and ocular surface health. The fact that it is highly variable and has input from so many sources makes it very difficult to study. In the present review, the behavior of blink in many of these systems is discussed, ultimately returning in each instance to a discussion of how these factors affect blink in the context of dry eyes. Blink is important to ocular surface health and to an individual's optimal functioning and quality of life. Disturbances in blink, as cause or effect, result in a breakdown of tear film stability, optical clarity, and visual function.

Introduction Field studies for allergic rhinitis (AR) commonly have inconsistent allergen concentrations and subject exposure patterns due to varying environmental conditions and subject behaviors. A technical and clinical validation study was conducted for the Allergen BioCube® using timothy grass to confirm uniform allergen concentration and clinically relevant subject symptom responses. Methods Allergen concentrations were verified by laser particle counts. Subjects (N = 14) with positive skin test reactions and no symptoms at screening received four 3-h timothy grass exposures in the BioCube over consecutive days. Subjects evaluated nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal congestion while in the BioCube; Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was computed. Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF), Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR), sIgE blood tests, and Nasal Inflammation Score (NIS) were assessed. A correlation analysis was conducted for mean sIgE, skin test, and TNSS. Results Uniform timothy grass concentrations were achieved in the BioCube, both spatially and temporally, at all subject positions. Mean TNSS increased substantially from pre-exposure levels (0.36 ± 0.74 to 1.86 ± 2.14) to maximums of 7.07 ± 2.76 at 1.5 h and 6.71 ± 2.70 at 3 h BioCube exposure. Twelve (86%) subjects had TNSS increases ≥6 units. PNIF decreased 12–24% from baseline at 3-h BioCube exposure. NIS increased (baseline = 0) to 3.7 (maximum score = 4). A low/moderate correlation (r = 0.485) occurred between mean sIgE blood levels and mean skin tests; neither sIgE or skin tests correlated with mean TNSS. However, subjects with high skin test scores or positive blood IgE tended to also have higher TNSS. Conclusions The Allergen BioCube achieved technical and clinical validation for uniform timothy grass concentration and clinically meaningful AR sign and symptom responses. The Allergen BioCube can be used to assess the efficacy of therapies for reduction of AR signs and symptoms resulting from grass exposure.

Background: GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic t...

Allergic conjunctivitis is an inflammatory disorder at the ocular surface that affects 40% of Americans with allergic symptoms. Treatment of chronic ocular allergy is currently limited and is often associated with severe side effects. Development of new therapeutics to address this unmet need has proved challenging due to the highly variable nature of this disorder. Historically, clinical studies for the evaluation of pharmacological agents for the treatment of ocular allergy relied on seasonal and/or chamber models, both of which are associated with a number of limitations resulting in inconsistent and, oftentimes, non-reproducible study conditions. The development of the conjunctival allergen challenge model in 1990 provided a highly effective means for the study of ocular allergy. Recently, modifications to this model with multiple successive allergen challenges have shown to mimic the chronic allergic response and will likely be pivotal in the development of new therapeutics for chronic allergic conju...

Article full text The full text of this article can be found here. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40123-017-0110-x Provide enhanced content for this article If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced content for your article then please contact adisrapidplus@springer.com. The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content. Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to: • Slide decks • Videos and animations • Audio abstracts • Audio slides

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a sustained-release dexamethasone intracanalicular insert (Dextenza™) in a model of allergic conjunctivitis.This was a randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, Phase 2 study. Subjects had to have a positive conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) reaction to allergen (bilateral +2 itching and redness on 5-point, 0-4 scales) at Visit 1, and for 2 of 3 time points on subsequent visits. Subjects who met entry criteria were randomized to receive Dextenza or PV (vehicle insert). Challenges occurred over 42 days, with efficacy assessed at 14 (primary endpoint visit), 28, and 40 days postinsertion. Outcome measures included the evaluation of ocular itching, redness, tearing, chemosis, eyelid swelling, rhinorrhea, and congestion.Twenty-eight subjects completed the study in the Dextenza group and 31 in the vehicle group. At 14 days postinsertion, Dextenza was statistically superior to PV, with least square mean differences for ocular itching of -0.76, -0.97, and -0.87 at 3, 5, and 7 min post-CAC, and for conjunctival redness of -0.46, -0.66, and -0.68 at 7, 15, and 20 min post-CAC. Clinical significance, defined as a 1-U decrease from PV, was not met for primary efficacy. Secondary endpoints, including number of subjects reporting itching and conjunctival redness, indicated superior performance of Dextenza compared with vehicle. Eleven Dextenza-treated (35.5%) and 10 vehicle-treated (30.3%) subjects each experienced a single adverse event.This Phase 2 study demonstrated preliminary efficacy and safety data of Dextenza for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Purpose To assess diurnal changes in the signs and symptoms of dry eyes and their relationship to diurnal interblink interval (IBI) in normal subjects and in subjects with dry eye. Methods Blink data were collected from 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM during 2 days of normal activity using an electrocardiogram monitoring device. All subjects recorded ocular discomfort (0-5 scale) and primary activity hourly each day in a diary. Inferior and central fluorescein staining was graded by slit lamp (0-4) at the start and end of each day. Blink activity was detected using an algorithm based on recognition of the waveform corresponding to the kinematic properties of the blink signal. Results Normal subjects (N = 12) reported negligible symptoms, and results did not show a diurnal change in group hourly IBI. Mean daily IBI for the group with dry eye (N = 15) (4.63 ± 1.63 s) was shorter than that for the normal group (5.28 ± 1.48 s) (P = 0.0483). Correlation of diurnal symptoms and mean hourly IBI was relatively weak (r = -0.248). A repeated-measures model found IBI to be significantly associated with the time of day (P = 0.0028). Inferior corneal staining showed a small but significant diurnal increase for both normal group and group with dry eyes. Conclusions Diurnal blink tracking reveals significant trending with symptoms. Diurnal change in IBI may be an appropriate surrogate for symptoms in the study of dry eye.

Field clinical trials of pollen allergy are affected by the impossibility of predicting and determining individual allergen exposure because of many factors (eg, pollen season, atmospheric variations, pollutants, and lifestyles). Environmental exposure chambers, delivering a fixed amount of allergen in a controlled environmental setting, can overcome these limitations. Environmental exposure chambers are currently already used in phase 2, 3, and even 4 trials. Unfortunately, few chambers exist in the world, and this makes it difficult to perform large, multicenter clinical trials. The new Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GAThis study was made to validate the reproducibility, sensitivity, and specificity of the results obtained in the new GASeventy-two adult patients (19-61 years old) with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma caused by grass pollen were included in different clinical validation tests. Total symptom scores and total nasal symptom scores were recorded at time zero (0) and every 10 minutes during exposures, along with nasal and respiratory parameters.Exposure tests confirmed the reproducibility between subsequent runs and the sensitivity (P .00001 vs patients exposed to placebo) and specificity (very low score in nonallergic subjects) in the GAThe mobility of the GA

This clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solutions 1.0% and 1.5% compared with placebo for the treatment of ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia (redness) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis when dosed 16 h before a CAC test.Subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were assigned to receive placebo or bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0% or 1.5% in a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Eligible subjects (n=107) aged 10 years and older with a history of allergic conjunctivitis who had a reproducible positive reaction to a CAC were enrolled and dosed with test agent. The primary trial objectives included assessment of ocular itching and conjunctival redness at 16 h after instillation of test agent. Reductions in several CAC-induced secondary symptoms and signs of allergic conjunctivitis were also evaluated for tearing, ciliary and episcleral redness, eyelid swelling, chemosis, and mucous discharge.Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5% demonstrated clinical effectiveness and statistical significance in comparison to placebo for the reduction in CAC-induced ocular itching 16 h after drug administration. Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0% also achieved statistical significance in comparison to placebo for reducing ocular itching at all time points 16 h after dosing. Statistically significant reduction (P≤0.05) was additionally seen in this CAC test for the secondary ocular efficacy variable of allergen-induced tearing for bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%. No clinical benefit was seen for reducing the coprimary efficacy variable of conjunctival redness with the CAC model of allergic conjunctivitis.Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5% produced predefined clinically meaningful reduction in CAC-induced ocular itching and tearing in a single-site trial and was more effective than bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0% and placebo for reducing ocular itching in a CAC test 16 h after dosing.

Use of topical antihistamines in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis has evolved over the past several decades as our knowledge of the nature of the underlying disease has progressed. Formulations for the eye typically employ H(1)-receptor antagonists with a dual action, both directly as competitors for histamine receptor occupancy and as mast cell-stabilizing agents. Many of these compounds also display activity against late-phase allergic symptoms. Of the newest available drugs, several have a prolonged duration of action allowing once-daily dosing. Future development is likely to focus on long-acting agents such as these and on drugs that can target additional histamine receptor subtypes.

Background Bepotastine besilate is a selective histamine 1 -receptor antagonist and mast cell stabilizer with inhibitory effects on eosinophilic activity. Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1.5% bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution in alleviating nonocular symptoms induced by a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC), a clinical model of allergic conjunctivitis. Methods This was a single-center, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial performed from March 1 to April 4, 2007. Patients 10 years or older with a history of allergic conjunctivitis and a reproducible, positive, clinical response to a CAC were eligible. Patients received either placebo or 1.5% bepotastine besilate, 1 drop in each eye. After 15 minutes, 8 hours, or 16 hours after dosing, a CAC was performed and patients evaluated nonocular symptoms using standardized grading scales. Results Seventy-one patients were enrolled in the study, and 66 comprised the per protocol population. A clinically meaningful reduction (≥1.0 unit) compared to placebo was achieved for rhinorrhea and nasal congestion at most time points after 1.5% bepotastine besilate instillation at 8 hours before a CAC test. Significant reductions ( P ≤ .05) in mean values were seen with 1.5% bepotastine besilate at 15 minutes and 8 hours after dosing for CAC-induced nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, ear or palate pruritus, nasal pruritus, and summed nonocular composite symptom (NOCS) scores and also at 16 hours after dosing for nasal congestion and rhinorrhea. Conclusions The 1.5% bepotastine besilate formulation produced statistically significant reductions after a CAC in individual nonocular symptoms and NOCS scores at onset of allergic response and for at least 8 hours after instillation, with the greatest reduction seen for nasal congestion and rhinorrhea.

PURPOSE Subjects with dry eye often complain of disturbances in visual function and worsening of symptoms in the evening. To clinically substantiate these reports of diurnal variations, the present study tested subjects with dry eye on a series of visual function and ocular physiology measures. METHODS Twenty-one subjects with dry eye were enrolled and underwent ophthalmic examinations, including best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, visual function decay as measured by the interblink interval visual acuity decay test without ocular anesthetic, reading rate test, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and tear film breakup time. Keratitis, conjunctival redness, and corneal sensitivity were also assessed. Examinations occurred once during the morning and for a second time in the evening. Subjects also completed a modified version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index at both study visits. RESULTS Subjects with dry eye showed impaired visual function in the evening, as compared to that in the morning; they maintained their best spectacle-corrected visual acuity for a shorter time between blinks (P < 0.01) and had longer readings times (P < 0.05) in the evening as compared with that in the morning. These findings were qualified by Ocular Surface Disease Index results showing greater subjective visual impairment in the evening. Subjects also demonstrated a significant increase in keratitis and conjunctival redness from morning to evening testing. Less ocular discomfort was reported in the evening than in the morning; this effect significantly correlated with corneal sensitivity in the evening. CONCLUSIONS Subjects with dry eye experience significant diurnal variations of visual function and ocular surface physiology. These daily rhythms should be considered when designing clinical trials and when quantifying disease severity.

Introduction: Large vessel acute ischemic stroke has a poor outcome. Intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is often contra-indicated and if given, usually ineffective. Mechanical embolectomy is an option in these patients and may be performed by an interventional cardiologist experienced in carotid interventions. Method: Consecutive stroke patients were assessed by the stroke physician and, if eligible, referred for possible mechanical embolectomy using the Merci retriever. All procedures were done by a single cardiologist. Patient information, procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes at 90 days were collected by retrospective chart review. Results: A total of 22 patients were referred for emergency cerebral angiography with 17 undergoing mechanical embolectomy. The mean National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 20.1 and the mean stroke duration was 284 min. Recanalization was successful in 15 (88%) patients. Ten patients (59%) had a good outcome (modified Rankin Score ≤2 at 90 days) and four died (mortality 23%). Three patients had significant intra-cerebral hemorrhage. There were no other major adverse events. Conclusions: For patients with large vessel occlusion strokes where IV thrombolysis was either contra-indicated or had failed, mechanical embolectomy performed by an interventional cardiologist had a high recanalization rate with an acceptable clinical outcome and safety profile. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Bepotastine besilate is a highly selective histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist with antihistaminic, mast cell stabilizing, and anti-inflammatory activity. Based on a history of clinical effectiveness and tolerability of oral bepotastine besilate in the treatment of allergic symptoms, bepotastine besilate is being tested as a potential ophthalmic medication for allergic conjunctivitis.The aim of this study was to assess the effects of bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0% and 1.5% for the treatment of ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia in a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model in adults and children.This Phase III, single-center, prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, CAC clinical trial enrolled patientsor=10 years of age with a history of allergic conjunctivitis, skin-test reaction, and CAC response. Patients received bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0%, bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%, or placebo, 1 drop on each eye on days 14 +/- 3 and 28 +/- 3. The primary efficacy end points, patient-assessed ocular itching (at 3, 5, and 7 minutes) and investigator-assessed conjunctival hyperemia (at 7, 15, and 20 minutes), were determined after CAC according to standardized 5-point scales (0 = none to 4 = severe). Clinical significance was defined in the protocol asor=1.0-U between-group difference in mean ocular itching scores at the majority of time points at a study visit and also aor=0.5-U difference at all time points. Tolerability of the test agent was assessed by visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure, dilated funduscopy, and adverse events.A total of 107 patients (male, 54%; age range, 11-73 years; white race/ethnicity, 93%) received investigational product and comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0%, 36 patients; bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%, 35; and placebo, 36). All 107 patients received investigational product at visit 3A (day 0) and were included in the ITT population. Of the 107 patients who were enrolled, 103 completed the study without a protocol deviation or violation. The 1.0% and 1.5% solutions were associated with clinically and statistically significant reductions in mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo on the 15-minute onset-of-action and 8-hour duration-of-action CAC tests (reductions, 1.3-1.5 U and 1.0-1.7 U respectively; all, P0.001). Statistically significant reductions in conjunctival hyperemia were achieved with both bepotastine besilate concentrations. Overall, 13 patients experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event considered related to the study drug (bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0%, 6 patients; bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%, 4; and placebo, 3).In this CAC model of allergic conjunctivitis in adults and children, bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solutions 1.0% and 1.5% were associated with clinically and statistically significant reductions in ocular itching, but not conjunctival hyperemia, within 15 minutes that were maintained for at least 8 hours after administration. Both solutions were well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00424398.

Compound 48/80, a non-immunogenic mast cell degranulatory agent, is known to produce the signs and symptoms of ocular allergy. Maximal mast cell degranulation of human conjunctiva occurred within the first hour after stimulation by a single topical dose of compound 48/80 (20 microliters, 7.5 mg/ml). The average percentage of fully degranulated mast cells in treated specimens (n = 9) was 31% (range 5-60%) versus 6% (range 0-20%) in control specimens (n = 5). Exact correlates of representative granulated, partially degranulated, and fully degranulated mast cells were determined by light and transmission electron microscopy.

To analyze the effect of azithromycin 1% ophthalmic solution in DuraSite (InSite Vision, Inc, Alameda, California, USA) on bacterial conjunctivitis.Prospective, randomized, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group, double-masked multicenter clinical study.Eligible male or female participants with a clinical diagnosis of acute bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized to either 1% azithromycin in DuraSite or vehicle for five days. Infected eyes were dosed twice daily on days 1 and 2 and once daily on days 3 through 5. Conjunctival cultures were obtained at baseline, visit 2 (day 3 or 4), and visit 3 (day 6 or 7). The primary end point was clinical resolution of signs and symptoms (rating of zero on ocular discharge, bulbar and palpebral injection) at visit 3. Efficacy measures were clinical resolution and bacterial eradication as evaluated in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed by adverse events, slit-lamp findings, and ophthalmoscopy.Two hundred and seventy-nine participants (n = 130, 1% azithromycin in DuraSite; n = 149, vehicle), age one to 96 years, were evaluated for efficacy. Clinical resolution with azithromycin ophthalmic solution was statistically significant compared with that of vehicle (P = .030) at visit 3. Bacterial eradication rates with azithromycin ophthalmic solution reached 88.5% at visit 3 (P.001) and included some pathogens resistant to azithromycin in vitro. Overall, adverse event rates were similar in both treatment groups.Azithromycin 1% ophthalmic solution in DuraSite showed statistically significant differences in clinical resolution and bacterial eradication rates when compared with vehicle. Because it was well tolerated in this population, it may be a viable treatment option for children and adults with bacterial conjunctivitis.

The interaction of the time between blinks, or the interblink interval (IBI), and tear film breakup time (TFBUT) helps to regulate the integrity of the ocular surface. A protected surface exists when the TFBUT matches or exceeds the IBI. In contrast, an unprotected surface exists when TFBUT is less than the IBI. This is clinically relevant because repeated intermittent exposure of a tear film-deficient cornea can lead to ocular discomfort and the development of clinical signs, such as keratitis and redness. The relationship between TFBUT and IBI has been quantified by the Ocular Protection Index (OPI), which is calculated by dividing TFBUT by IBI. If the OPI is1.0, the patient has an exposed ocular surface, putting them at risk for the development of the signs and symptoms of dry eye, whereas if the OPI isor=1.0, the patient's ocular surface is tear film protected. The OPI has proven to be useful in assessing the factors that may cause or exacerbate dry eye. This review discusses the development and use of the OPI model, its relationship to dry eye, and factors that are known to alter blink rate and tear film integrity.

Background: Olopatadine 0.2% is the first topical ophthalmic antihistamine/mast cell stabilizer indicated for once-daily dosing. Objective: This review provides a comprehensive description of the pharmacology of the olopatadine molecule, as well as of the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and safety of olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution. Methods: References cited in this review were obtained from the PubMed biomedical literature database. Also included were several posters presented at nationally renowned ophthalmology-related conferences. Results/conclusion: Olopatadine 0.2% was found to be a safe and effective medication for the reduction of itching with a duration of action of up to 24 h. The added convenience of a once-a-day dosing regimen is a major advancement in this drug class.

Olopatadine 0.1% (Patanol) and olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday) ophthalmic solutions are topical ocular anti-allergic agents with antihistaminic and mast cell stabilizing properties. The efficacy of two doses of olopatadine 0.1% was compared to one dose of olopatadine 0.2% in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis over 24 hours. This double-masked conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) study found no significant difference in the mean itching scores between two drops of olopatadine 0.1% and one drop of olopatadine 0.2%. Both showed significant activity at the 24-hour time point and were statistically superior to placebo. No adverse events occurred while on drug therapy.

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the visual function information obtained from multiple reading tests in a dry eye population. METHODS In this case-control, single-center clinical research center-based study, 15 subjects with dry eye (mean age 65 years) and 10 normal subjects (mean age 40 years) were included. The Standardized Mini-Mental Examination was given to assure that subjects had normal cognitive function. Reading tests were both sentence based (Radner reading acuity test, reading contrast sensitivity test at a fixed print size, and menu-reading test) and paragraph based (Wilkins test and International Reading Speed Texts [IReST]). Wilkins and IReST tests were slightly modified to increase difficulty and visual stress. The main outcome measures were cognitive function, fatigue, dry eye symptoms, reading acuity, reading rate, and blink rate. RESULTS Results showed significantly lower rates in all reading tests in subjects with dry eye than in normal subjects; in the age-matched subgroup, only the menu and contrast sensitivity tests lost significance. Fatigue was significantly related to the IReST test, both at normal and critical print sizes. Reflex tearing was monitored and shown to significantly decrease the reading rate. IReST scores were considered the baseline, and the percent change from one test to IReST was also used to differentiate dry eye and normal subjects. The blink rate, symptoms, and demographics were not significantly correlated with reading tests. CONCLUSIONS Reading is a relevant end point that differentiates dry eye and normal subjects. This study evaluated a variety of reading tests for relevance as a measurable assessment of visual function in dry eye disease.

PURPOSE To develop an automated method of grading fluorescein staining that accurately reproduces the clinical grading system currently in use. METHODS From the slit lamp photograph of the fluorescein-stained cornea, the region of interest was selected and punctate dot number calculated using software developed with the OpenCV computer vision library. Images (n = 229) were then divided into six incremental severity categories based on computed scores. The final selection of 54 photographs represented the full range of scores: nine images from each of six categories. These were then evaluated by three investigators using a clinical 0 to 4 corneal staining scale. Pearson correlations were calculated to compare investigator scores, and mean investigator and automated scores. Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficients (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between methods and between investigators. RESULTS Pearson's correlation between investigators was 0.914; mean CCC between investigators was 0.882. Bland-Altman analysis indicated that scores assessed by investigator 3 were significantly higher than those of investigators 1 and 2 (paired t-test). The predicted grade was calculated to be: Gpred = 1.48log(Ndots) - 0.206. The two-point Pearson's correlation coefficient between the methods was 0.927 (P < 0.0001). The CCC between predicted automated score Gpred and mean investigator score was 0.929, 95% confidence interval (0.884-0.957). Bland-Altman analysis did not indicate bias. The difference in SD between clinical and automated methods was 0.398. CONCLUSIONS An objective, automated analysis of corneal staining provides a quality assurance tool to be used to substantiate clinical grading of key corneal staining endpoints in multicentered clinical trials of dry eye.

Allergy is the fifth leading group of chronic diseases, affecting as much as 40% of the first-world population. Its pathophysiology has a genetic component, and is driven by the immune system's sensitized response to antigens and environmental factors. As research continues to uncover the mediators responsible for ocular allergy, the development of novel drugs should progress.A literature review of allergic conjunctivitis, ocular allergy and their treatment was performed using PubMed and Medline. Additional information is also included from clinicaltrials.gov and associated web sites for drugs currently in clinical trials.The initial step of therapy remains identification and avoidance of allergic triggers. The mainstay of treatment is the new generation of dual-acting antihistamines. Drugs that improve the magnitude and duration of relief, with greater subject responder rates, are gradually making their way into the clinic. Allergic conjunctivitis is a relatively easy disease to study because of the availability of models such as the conjunctival allergen challenge. New classes of drugs that target inflammatory pathways or mediators involved in the early and late-phase allergic response are being screened in these models and we are making progress in identifying the next generation of anti-allergic therapy.

Allergies occur frequently in all pediatric age groups, affecting up to 40% of children. Allergic conjunctivitis is the most common ocular allergy syndrome among children, with atopic keratoconjunctivitis and vernal keratoconjunctivitis comprising less common, but potentially more severe, forms of ocular allergy. In this article, we review the impact, diagnosis, potential complications, and treatment of these ocular allergic pediatric conditions. Early detection is necessary to prevent potentially serious consequences of pediatric ocular allergy. Involvement of pediatric ophthalmologists may be necessary to avoid preventable vision loss in severe cases.

A new formulation of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution (olopatadine 0.2%) was evaluated in two separate, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, hybrid environmental studies intended to determine efficacy and safety in subjects with histories of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis.In these 10- and 12-week trials (conducted April-August 2003 and July-December 2001, respectively), subjects assessed their ocular signs and symptoms. Additionally, subjects in the 10-week trial evaluated the frequency of their nasal symptoms while subjects in the 12-week trial evaluated both the frequency and severity of their nasal symptoms. The two trials had a combined enrollment of 500 subjects (217 males, 283 females) including 44 children aged 10-17 years; the combined population was 81.4% Caucasian, 9.2% Black, 2% Hispanic, and 7.4% other. Daily throughout these studies, either ragweed (fall study) or grass (spring study) pollen counts were obtained from each investigative center. Slope analyses were conducted on the nasal symptom assessments by pollen count.The nasal results from the two clinical trials are presented herein. In the fall study, relative to placebo, olopatadine 0.2% significantly reduced the frequency of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0355) and itchy nose (p = 0.0032), and reduced the severity of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0451), itchy nose (p = 0.0178), and runny nose (p = 0.0327). In the spring study, olopatadine 0.2% significantly reduced the frequency of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0017) and runny nose (p = 0.0031) relative to placebo. In the fall trial, 2 subjects discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events (tachycardia and dry eye), while in the spring study, no subject discontinued due to a treatment-related adverse event. No subject in either study suffered a treatment-related serious adverse event.For the subjects enrolled in these studies, olopatadine 0.2% appeared to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective in significantly reducing the frequency and/or severity of some effects of pollen on nasal symptoms.

Atrial fibrillation is a common cause of cardiac embolic events, especially stroke. Oral anticoagulation therapy is used to reduce these events. Many patients however are unable to take such therapy. Percutaneous occlusion of the left atrial appendage (the source of 90% of these emboli) is an option in these patients. Presented here are the first 12 patients to have this procedure done in South Africa.

Systemic antihistamines, such as loratadine and cetrizine hydrochloride, have proven efficacious in the control of many allergic conditions; however, patients complain about their drying effects.To investigate the ocular drying effects of loratadine and cetirizine hydrochloride in individuals with normal ocular health exposed to a controlled adverse environment (CAE).Eighteen individuals completed a randomized, double-masked study. Participants were evaluated in a CAE (a chamber that regulates humidity, temperature, airflow, and visual tasking) at baseline and after taking 10 mg of either loratadine or cetirizine hydrochloride daily for 4 days. Keratitis, conjunctival staining, and tear film break-up time (TFBUT) were examined before and after a 45-minute CAE exposure. Participant-reported ocular discomfort was recorded every 5 minutes during CAE challenge.After 4 days, use of loratadine yielded a mean increase of 0.75 points (107%) in keratitis (P.001), a mean increase of 1.35 points (133%) in conjunctival staining (P.001), a mean decrease of 1.38 seconds (33.7%) in TFBUT (P.001), and a mean increase of 0.32 points (24.8%) in ocular discomfort (P = .05) vs baseline. After 4 days, use of cetirizine hydrochloride yielded a mean increase of 0.57 points (60%) in keratitis (P.001), a mean increase of 0.7 points (49.7%) in conjunctival staining (P = .005), and a mean decrease of 0.76 seconds (19.6%) in TFBUT (P = .05) vs baseline. Loratadine was shown to induce 93% greater conjunctival staining after 4 days of use and CAE exposure vs cetirizine hydrochloride (P = .04).Loratadine and cetirizine hydrochloride induced signs and symptoms associated with ocular dryness, including increased corneal and conjunctival staining, decreased TFBUT, and increased ocular discomfort in healthy individuals. Loratadine induced significantly more conjunctival staining than cetirizine hydrochloride.

Ocular allergy affects > 20% of the general population and many therapeutic preparations are available to individuals experiencing the most common forms--seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis. 0.1% Olopatadine topical ophthalmic solution is currently approved for the treatment of allergic signs and symptoms in patients > or = 3 years of age. Olopatadine is available in Europe as Opatanol) and in > 30 other countries as Patanol. It inhibits mast cell degranulation and antagonises histamine receptors to manage the itching, redness, chemosis, tearing and lid swelling of the ocular allergic reaction, and its mast cell stabilising ability has been demonstrated both in vitro (using human conjunctival mast cells) and in vivo (human clinical experience). This article reviews both the laboratory and clinical information available on olopatadine, prefaced by a discussion of the current understanding of the ocular allergic reaction and followed by the future implications for this compound. Both laboratory and clinical studies have established the efficacy, safety and comfort of olopatadine in several study design models and comparisons to other antiallergy medications. The application of olopatadine, specifically in the management of lid swelling, an allergic sign recalcitrant to therapy and nasal allergic symptoms has also been established. In the future, a new formulation containing 0.2% olopatadine exhibits a duration of action up to 24 h, supporting once-daily dosing.

To determine the duration of action of ketotifen 0.025% eye drops vs placebo taken as single or multiple doses in an allergen challenge model.Two randomized, multicenter, double-masked, contralateral placebo-controlled studies, one a single-dose and one a multiple-dose study.Two conjunctival provocation tests (CPTs) were initially conducted to confirm reproducibility of subject responses in both studies. Subjects in study 1 (n = 87) received single doses of ketotifen in one eye and placebo in the other 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 8 hours before CPT. Subjects in study 2 (n = 85) received ketotifen or placebo once 8 hours before CPT. Single-dose efficacy results were used to further qualify a subject as a responder. Responders were re-randomized to a 4-week twice daily dosing regimen with a CPT 8 hours after the final dose. In both studies, ocular symptoms were assessed at three time points 3 to 15 minutes after challenge. There were no significant differences in adverse events between groups.For both studies, ocular itching and vascular injection were significantly reduced (P.003) at all time points after instillation of ketotifen, with a maximum reduction at 7 minutes postchallenge. In study 2, chemosis, tearing, and lid swelling were also assessed and were significantly reduced (P.008) after instillation of ketotifen.Ketotifen 0.025% eye drops were safe and statistically effective in preventing ocular itching, injection, and other signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis at 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 8 hours after a single dose and at 8 hours after the final dose of a 4-week twice daily regimen.

The tolerability of brimonidine tartrate 0.15%--referred to as bromonidine-Purite 0.15% in this study--was compared with brimonidine tartrate 0.2% in irritated eyes of healthy volunteers as well as patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension (N=20) in a 2-week, single-center, randomized, double-masked, crossover study. Participants were evaluated at days 0, 7, 11, and 15. At day 0, they were exposed to a controlled adverse environment (CAE), in which humidity, temperature, and airflow was regulated, for up to 90 minutes. Participants who reported a sufficient level of bilateral ocular discomfort during exposure to the CAE were enrolled in this study and received 1 drop of brimonidine-Purite 0.15% in 1 eye and 1 drop of brimonidine tartrate 0.2% in the contralateral eye. Immediately following instillation, participants were asked to indicate their preference for either study medication. The study medications were not used between days 0 and 7. From day 7 to 10, participants administered either drug bilaterally. On day 11, the treatment was crossed over, and participants were asked to compare the preferred medication with their previous regimen. They continued to administer the drug bilaterally twice daily until day 15, when the preferred medication was again compared with the previous regimen. Following CAE exposure at visit 1, 70.6% of the participants preferred brimonidine-Purite 0.15% over brimonidine tartrate 0.2% and indicated that it was significantly more comfortable than brimonidine tartrate 0.2% (P=.009). When given brimonidine-Purite 0.15% first before switching to brimonidine tartrate 0.2%, 80% of participants preferred brimonidine-Purite 0.15% (P=.012). When given brimonidine tartrate 0.2% first before switching to brimonidine-Purite 0.15%, 85% preferred brimonidine-Purite 0.15% (P=.001). The results of this study suggest that brimonidine-Purite 0.15% is significantly more comfortable than brimonidine tartrate 0.2% in patients with irritated eyes.

Ocular allergy refers to a variety of hypersensitivity disorders that affect the lid, conjunctiva, and/or cornea. Its incidence is estimated at over 20% of the general population in the United States. This review will discuss the various forms of ocular allergy, their pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. New frontiers in mechanisms, therapy, and management in the office are emphasized throughout.

The most common form of allergic ocular disease is seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, coinciding with the pollen season and generally associated with rhinitis. Symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis include ocular itching, hyperemia, tearing, mucus production, foreign body sensation, chemosis, and lid edema. Similarly, the primary symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis are nasal itching, irritation, sneezing, watery rhinorrhea, and congestion combined with ocular itching, tearing, and swelling.This study compared olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution with placebo eyedrops (over-the-counter artificial tear product), instilled in the eye, with regard to the prevention and relief of the ocular and nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis.This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, conducted at 7 US centers, to instill either olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution or placebo eyedrops (artificial tears) in both eyes twice daily for 10 weeks. Patients were evaluated for efficacy (intent-to-treat) and safety. Only patients with proven grass pollen allergy (dermal and conjunctival allergen challenge tests) were selected; all patients were studied during the same period, historically shown to be grass season; and grass pollen counts were obtained.A total of 131 patients (64 olopatadine; 67 placebo) were assessed for efficacy (intent-to-treat); 132 patients were assessed for safety. The mean (SD) age of participants was 38.53 (11.61) years (range, 18 to 87 years), and 58.0% were women (76/131), with no significant differences between groups for age or sex. In the olopatadine group, 1.6% of patients were black (1/64), compared with 14.9% of the placebo group (10/67) (P = 0.005). Mean scores of ocular itching and hyperemia were lower at all assessment times with olopatadine than placebo. The difference was statistically significant (P0.05) for itching on days 7, 14, 35, 63, and 70, and for hyperemia on days 14, 28, 42, and 63, after correction for multiplicity. Linear regression slopes predicting ocular itching and hyperemia from the pollen count were significantly lower (P0.003 and P0.035, respectively) with olopatadine than with placebo. Similar results were obtained for rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching (P0.006, P0.012, and P0.034, respectively). With placebo, the proportion of patients with frequent ocular itching and hyperemia increased as a function of pollen level; however, with olopatadine, the proportions remained low and virtually constant.In the population studied, olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution controlled ocular and nasal symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and rhinocojunctivitis and was well tolerated when administered twice daily for 10 weeks.

Ketotifen fumarate, formulated for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, is a histamine H1-receptor antagonist, mast cell stabilizer, and eosinophil inhibitor (decreases chemotaxis and activation of eosinophils). In this study, healthy volunteers 3 years of age or older received ketotifen fumarate .025% ophthalmic solution (n = 330) or placebo (n = 165) four times daily for 6 weeks. Ketotifen was safe and well tolerated in the adult and pediatric populations, with an incidence of ocular adverse events of 18.2%, compared with 15.2% with placebo. No ocular rebound vasodilation or itching was observed within 48 hours after treatment. Ketotifen has a favorable safety and tolerability profile, which may have a positive impact on compliance, an important aspect of effective symptomatic control of allergic conjunctivitis.

George W Ousler 3rd,1 Mark B Abelson,1,2 Patrick R Johnston,1 John Rodriguez,1 Keith Lane,1 Lisa M Smith11Ora, Andover, MA, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USAPurpose: To classify blinks in dry eye and normal subjects into six subtypes, and to define the blink rate and duration within each type of blink, as well as the total lid-contact time/minute.Materials and methods: This was a single-centered, prospective, double-blind study of elevendry-eye and ten normal subjects. Predefined subjects watched a video while blinks were recorded for10minutes. Partial blinks were classified by percentage closure of maximal palpebral fissure opening:25%,50%,75%. Complete blinks were characterized as full (>0 seconds), extended (>0.1seconds), or superextended (>0.5seconds). The mean duration of each type of blink was determined and standardized per minute as total lid-contact time.Results: Total blinks observed were4,990(1,414normal,3,756dry eye):1,809(50.59%) partial and1,767(49.41%) complete blinks among dry-eye subjects versus741(52.90%) partial and673(47.60%) complete blinks among normal subjects. Only superextended blinks of ≥0.5-second duration were significantly more frequent in dry-eye subjects than normals (2.3%versus0.2%, respectively; P=0.023). Total contact time was seven times higher in dry-eye subjects than normals (0.565versus0.080seconds, respectively; P0.1second), the average contact time (seconds) was four times longer in dry-eye versus normal subjects (2.459in dry eye,0.575in normals; P=0.003). Isolating only superextended blinks (>0.5seconds), average contact time was also significantly different (7.134in dry eye,1.589in normals; P

A multicenter open-label study investigated the clinical effectiveness and economic feasibility of switching 142 patients from dual therapy to twice-daily monotherapy with brimonidine for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Evaluations were performed at baseline and 2 (visit 2) and 8 (visit 3) weeks after the switch. Patients completed a questionnaire that rated medication-related visual function and satisfaction (comfort, convenience, vision, ease of remembering to use drops) at each visit. At visit 3, investigators, taking into account IOP measurements, safety, and responses on the questionnaire, recommended whether the patient should remain on brimonidine. A pharmacoeconomic analysis, including the number of visits, cost of medication, and success rates, compared the cost of dual therapy with that of switching to brimonidine monotherapy. Of the 131 patients who completed the study, 77 (59%) had no change or a decrease in IOP from baseline, and 53 (41 %) had an increase. Investigators recommended that 77% of the study completers continue to take brimonidine monotherapy. Extending treatment with brimonidine for 12 months would achieve a significant cost savings of 16%. Brimonidine monotherapy is an efficacious and cost-effective alternative to dual therapy for glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Appropriate monotherapy may be as effective as dual therapy for many patients, and a clinically relevant trial such as this may be economically advantageous for testing a switch.

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

We sought to evaluate the outcomes of acute stroke patients, who did not undergo thrombolysis, and who were treated by direct catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) in 3 interventional cardiology centers without pre-existing onsite programs for neurovascular interventions. Neurologists routinely selected

Two studies were conducted using the conjunctival provocation test (CPT) model of ocular allergy. The objective of the first study was to evaluate the sensitivity of the CPT model to a topical corticosteroid. Selected was loteprednol etabonate 0.5%, previously found effective in the treatment of ocular allergy and inflammation. The study was a randomized double-masked, placebo-controlled, paired-comparison of loteprednol etabonate 0.5% (LE), b.i.d. or q.i.d. Sixty subjects who had a minimum pre-determined allergic response received LE in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye for 28 days from Day 7 to Day 35. Antigen challenges were carried out on Days 0, 7 (baseline), 21 and 35. The primary endpoints were interocular differences in itching and mean redness (the average of ciliary, conjunctival and episcleral vessel beds). LE (either b.i.d. or q.i.d.) was significantly more effective than placebo for reducing mean redness and itching. No clinical or statistically significant changes in intraocular pressure were observed. Based upon the results of Study 1, we used the CPT model to aid in the selection of a concentration of loteprednol etabonate for subsequent studies in environmental seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. This was a randomized double-masked, placebo-controlled, paired-comparison of loteprednol etabonate 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3%, q.i.d. in 88 subjects. The dosing and testing regimen was similar to the first portion of the study. Loteprednol etabonate, 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3%, was numerically superior to the placebo in reducing mean redness and itching. At the 20-minute post allergen challenge, the 0.1% concentration was significantly superior (p0.05) to the placebo on Visit 4 (2 and 4 hour challenge) in reducing the mean redness; however, LE was only numerically superior in relieving itching. The 0.2% concentration was significantly superior (p0.05) to the placebo in the reduction of mean redness and itching on Visit 3 (Day 21) and in reduction of mean redness on Visit 4 (4 hour challenge). The 0.3% concentration was significantly superior (p0.05) to the placebo in the reduction of mean redness on all visits, and statistically significant in the reduction of itching on Visit 4 (4 hour challenge). While there were some elevations of IOP with LE 0.2%, they were not clinically significant. In conclusion, the CPT model of ocular allergy is useful in the evaluation of corticosteroids. Furthermore, based upon a dose-response study in this model, 0.2% loteprednol etabonate was selected for further evaluation in environmental seasonal allergic conjunctivitis studies.

Background An ophthalmic antiallergic agent with selective H 1 antihistaminic and mast cell stabilizing properties has been developed. Objectives To evaluate efficacy and safety, determine optimal concentration, and demonstrate onset and duration of action of this new drug, olopatadine. Methods This was a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, single-center study with five outpatient visits at least 7 days apart. Ninety-eight healthy, allergy-positive, subjects with a recent history of active allergic conjunctivitis not receiving current treatment participated. Conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) tests were performed on visits 1 and 2 to identify an allergen and concentration that consistently elicited signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. On visits 3, 4, and 5, CAC was performed 27 minutes, 8 hours, and 6 hours, respectively, after instillation of one drop of olopatadine (0.01%, 0.05%, 0.1%, or 0.15%) in one eye and placebo in the other. Both eyes were scored for the intensity of itching and redness at 3, 10, and 20 minutes after the CAC. Results All four concentrations of olopatadine were clinically and statistically superior to placebo in preventing ocular itching at all evaluations and preventing redness at most evaluations from immediately and 8 hours after drug administration. No drug-related adverse events were reported. The 0.1% concentration was found to be most effective. Conclusions The results indicate that olopatadine ophthalmic solution is safe and effective in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, with the 0.1% concentration of olopatadine being optimal. The rapid onset and at least 8 hour duration of action of olopatadine indicates that the drug can be used twice daily.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride and to determine its optimal concentration and the onset and duration of action for treating allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine is a new topical ophthalmic antiallergic agent that demonstrates activity as both an antihistamine and a mast cell stabilizer. Two double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, contralateral eye comparison studies were conducted using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Methods: A total of 169 subjects received 0.05% or 0.1% olopatadine. Study subjects were healthy adult men and women with a history of active allergic conjunctivitis within the previous two seasons but not receiving current treatment. With an allergen dose that produced signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis at visits 1 and 2, the conjunctival allergen challenge was performed 27 minutes after study drug administration at the third visit (onset-of-action challenge) and at 8 hours after study drug administration at the fourth visit (duration-of-action challenge). Olopatadine was administered in one eye and placebo in the opposite eye. Itching and redness were scored for both eyes at 3, 10, and 20 minutes after the conjunctival allergen challenge. Results: Both 0.05% and 0.1% concentrations of olopatadine were significantly (P < .05) more effective than placebo in inhibiting itching and redness at all evaluations when administered 27 minutes or 8 hours before the conjunctival allergen challenge. There were no serious or drug-related ocular or nonocular adverse events in either study. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the rapid and prolonged (at least 8 hours) ocular antiallergic action of olopatadine.

Only one of several available ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is currently FDA approved for use in acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). Sixty patients with SAC and moderate itching and bulbar conjunctival injection were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group trial comparing diclofenac sodium (DS) with ketorolac tromethamine (KT). Patients instilled 1 drop four times daily while awake for 14 days. Ocular signs and symptoms were evaluated at one and two weeks. The primary efficacy variables were itching and bulbar conjunctival injection. For both treatments, the ocular allergy sign and symptom scores were comparable at baseline. Both treatments evaluated in this study were well tolerated. Significant clinical and statistical reductions from baseline were observed in the primary efficacy variables. Treatment group differences were observed for the pain/soreness score with an advantage observed for the DS group at 30 minutes and at day 7. Our conclusion is that diclofenac sodium and ketorolac tromethamine acted similarly to reduce the ocular signs and symptoms associated with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. There was a statistically significant advantage for the DS group to be free of symptoms at the day 7 visit as compared to the KT group (20.7% vs. 3.2%).

Purpose: To report the results of two studies on the use of dorzolamide as adjunctive therapy to timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). In the larger study, the additive effect of dorzolamide administered twice daily also was compared with 2% pilocarpine. Methods: Both studies were parallel, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled comparisons. In the pilot study, 32 patients received 0.5% timolol twice daily plus either 2% dorzolamide twice daily or placebo twice daily for 8 days. In the Pilocarpine Comparison Study, 261 patients received 0.5% timolol twice daily plus 0.7% dorzolamide twice daily, 2% dorzolamide twice daily, 2% pilocarpine four times daily, or placebo (twice daily or 4 times daily) for 2 weeks. Patients then entered a 6-month extension period and received 0.5% timolol twice daily plus either 0.7% dorzolamide twice daily, 2% dorzolamide twice daily, or 2% pilocarpine four times daily. Results: In the pilot study, after 8 days, additional mean percent reductions in IOP for 2% dorzolamide and placebo were 17% and 3% at morning trough and 19% and 2% at peak, respectively. In the Pilocarpine Comparison Study, after 6 months, additional mean percent reductions in IOP (morning trough) were 9%, 13%, and 10% for 0.7% dorzolamide, 2% dorzolamide, and 2% pilocarpine, respectively. Patients receiving 2% pilocarpine had the highest rate of discontinuation due to a clinical adverse experience, and the use of dorzolamide was not associated with systemic side effects commonly observed with the use of oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Conclusion: Dorzolamide twice daily was effective and well tolerated by the patients in these studies as adjunctive therapy to timolol. The larger study demonstrated that both concentrations of dorzolamide produce similar IOP-lowering effects to 2% pilocarpine.

To investigate the activity of histamine-degradating enzymes in tears and plasma of patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC).Tear and plasma samples were collected from patients with VKC and from age-matched control subjects. Histamine was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in acid samples treated with perchloric to deactivate histaminase and in untreated samples. Tear cytology, skin test reactivity to histamine, and the sum clinical score of allergic signs and symptoms in patients with VKC also were evaluated. Nineteen patients with active VKC and six age-matched control subjects participated in this study.In untreated samples, tear histamine (mean +/- standard error of the mean) was 11.15 +/- 2.16 ng/ml in patients with VKC and 0.855 +/- 0.225 ng/ml in control tears (P0.001). In treated samples, mean tear histamine was 22.25 +/- 4.17 ng/ml in patients with VKC versus 10.64 +/- 2.85 ng/ml in control subjects (not statistically different). The ratio of histamine in treated to untreated samples (indicating histaminase activity) was significantly lower in patients with VKC (2.30 +/- 0.263) than in control subjects (17.57 +/- 5.97; P = 0.0001). Plasma histamine levels in untreated and treated samples were significantly higher in patients with VKC (untreated, 2.23 +/- 0.334 ng/ml; treated, 4.37 +/- 0.357 ng/ml) than in control subjects (untreated, 0.254 +/- 0.068, P = 0.0002; treated, 2.96 +/- 0.171 ng/ml, P = 0.0082). The enzymatic breakdown of histamine (treated/ untreated) in plasma was significantly decreased in patients with VKC (2.54 +/- 0.447) compared with control subjects (14.78 +/- 4.86; P = 0.0012). Skin reactivity to histamine was not increased in VKC. Tear histamine levels were significantly correlated to tear lymphocyte content in the general population and to tear basophils in the patients with tarsal-vernal VKC only. An increased number of tear eosinophils were correlated with elevated enzyme activity only in patients with tarsal-vernal VKC and to the clinical score only in limbal-vernal patients.The enzymatic degradation of histamine was significantly decreased in patients with VKC compared with control subjects in both tears and plasma, suggesting that this dysfunction may be a primary factor in the pathophysiology of VKC.

(1) to measure levels of tear eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC); (2) to verify any correlation between ECP and the severity of the disease; (3) to verify the effect of different topical therapies on the levels of tear ECP; (4) to investigate the activity of histamine degrading enzymes in tears and plasma of VKC patients.ECP was measured by RIA in tears from 23 VKC patients before and after therapy, and from seven controls. Tear cytology, ocular signs and symptoms were also evaluated before and after treatment. Histamine was measured by ELISA in both plasma and tears from 19 VKC patients and six age-matched controls, in both acid-treated (no enzyme activity) and untreated (enzyme activity) samples.(1) tear ECP levels were significantly higher in VKC patients than in healthy controls; (2) tear ECP levels showed a significant correlation to signs (p0.005) and symptoms (p0.001) of the disease; (3) tear ECP was reduced by both 2% cyclosporine and 0.1% dexamethasone; (4) tear and plasma histaminase activity, measured by the ratio of histamine in treated to untreated samples, were significantly lower in VKC patients compared to controls (p0.0001 and p0.001, respectively).Tear ECP levels reflect the clinical status of VKC patients. The measurement of ECP may prove to be a useful objective tool in evaluating allergic conjunctivitis and the effectiveness of specific treatments. Moreover, VKC patients show a significantly impaired histaminase capability, at both the local and systemic level. This dysfunction may exacerbate the effects of local histamine release in the course of the disease.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 0.05% levocabastine, a new antihistamine formulated for ophthalmic use, compared with the placebo vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis induced by ocular allergen challenge. Subjects who reacted. positively in both eyes on two separate occasions to ocular allergen challenge with grass, ragweed, or cat dander (N = 47) received one dose of 1 to 2 drops of 0.05% levocabastine in one eye and its vehicle in the other eye. After 10 minutes, the predetermined dose of allergen was instilled in both eyes. Signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis were evaluated with biomicroscopy and subjective evaluation of itching after 3, 5, and 10 minutes. Four hours after drug administration, subjects were rechallenged and reevaluated to determine levocabastine's duration of action. Results showed that levocabastine was significantly more effective than placebo in inhibiting itching, hyperemia, eyelid swelling, chemosis, and tearing after the initial challenge and in inhibiting all parameters except eyelid swelling after the rechallenge 4 hours later (p0.05). These results demonstrate that levocabastine, currently the only ophthalmic antihistamine available that is not combined with a vasoconstrictor, is efficacious in the inhibition of itching, as well as all of the allergic signs of a vascular origin, with a duration of action of at least 4 hours. Because of its strong effects on itching and hyperemia, chemosis, lid swelling, and tearing, levocabastine would be a valuable therapeutic agent to add to the heterogeneous family of antiallergic compounds presently available for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Acute allergic conjunctivitis (AAC) is a common ocular allergic disorder and incident rates as high as 20% have been reported. Although a wide range of therapeutic agents are available for the treatment of AAC, the ideal treatment seems to have remained elusive. Levocabastine, a highly potent specific H1-receptor, appears to offer a promising alternative as a topical single-agent therapy. Levocabastine eye drops have been found to be well tolerated with an adverse-effect profile comparable to placebo and sodium cromoglycate. In addition, ocular levocabastine has been shown to have a rapid onset and long duration of action. The efficacy of levocabastine has been extensively investigated in conjunctival provocation tests and environmental studies. The available data suggest that ocular levocabastine is an effective therapeutic agent. Statistically significant differences in favour of levocabastine have been observed in comparisons with sodium cromoglycate, antazoline/naphazoline and oral terfenadine.

We conducted a historical cohort study of 2,433 cosmetic contact lens wearers (1,055 conventional [non-disposable] daily wear lens users, 905 disposable extended wear lens users, and 473 conventional extended wear lens users) in order to estimate the rates of occurrence of complications and symptoms among disposable extended wear contact lens users and compare these rates with those for conventional soft daily wear users and conventional soft extended wear users. Data were abstracted from the office records of eight eye care practitioners for the period February 1987 through April 1989. The prevalence of all complications for disposable extended wear lens users was not significantly different from the prevalence for conventional daily wear lens users but was significantly lower than the prevalence for conventional extended wear lens users. The incidence of ulcers among disposable extended wear lens users did not differ significantly from the incidence found with conventional extended wear, but was significantly higher than the rate for conventional daily wear. Disposable extended wear lenses, in contrast to conventional extended wear lenses, may be more strongly associated with benign peripheral infiltrates than with the more serious central ulcers. Disposable extended wear lens users reported symptoms less frequently at routine scheduled visits than both conventional daily wear and conventional extended wear users and had a lower rate of unscheduled visits for complications and symptoms.