International archives of allergy and immunology · 2019
Liposomal Eye Spray Is as Effective as Antihistamine Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis Induced by Conjunctival Provocation Testing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grzella Anne-Nele, Schleicher Sabine, Shah-Hosseini Kija, Astvatsatourov Anatoli, Raskopf Esther, Allekotte Silke, Mösges Ralph
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Liposomal eye spray (LS) has been introduced for the treatment of dry eye. Whether LS can also relieve symptoms due to allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) has not yet been sufficiently investigated.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the onset of action, the reduction of allergy symptoms, and the safety of LS - a nonpharmacological treatment option - compared with those of antihistamine eye drops (AD).
METHODS: In this open, prospective, controlled, monocenter noninterventional study, adults with ARC received either LS or AD for the relief of eye irritation after a positive conjunctival provocation test (CPT). All patients completed a questionnaire before and after the CPT. Eye irritation was rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 6 time points. Conjunctival redness was analyzed using objective digital analysis based on images taken during the study visit.
RESULTS: Data were collected from 40 patients (20 per group). In both groups, 80% of patients perceived an onset of action within 0-2 min after application of LS or AD following the CPT. Relief of eye irritation (as determined by VAS) increased throughout the visit for both groups. In the digital analysis, the mean proportion of redness of the eye decreased from 10.3 to 7.0% for LS and from 10.4 to 6.5% for AD, with the largest difference observed 10 min after application (LS: 8.9%; AD: 6.0%; p = 0.094).
CONCLUSIONS: LS is a nonpharmacological treatment option for ARC, showing no significant difference or relevant numerical inferiority to AD in any parameter studied. It was generally safe and well tolerated.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the onset of action, the reduction of allergy symptoms, and the safety of LS - a nonpharmacological treatment option - compared with those of antihistamine eye drops (AD).
METHODS: In this open, prospective, controlled, monocenter noninterventional study, adults with ARC received either LS or AD for the relief of eye irritation after a positive conjunctival provocation test (CPT). All patients completed a questionnaire before and after the CPT. Eye irritation was rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 6 time points. Conjunctival redness was analyzed using objective digital analysis based on images taken during the study visit.
RESULTS: Data were collected from 40 patients (20 per group). In both groups, 80% of patients perceived an onset of action within 0-2 min after application of LS or AD following the CPT. Relief of eye irritation (as determined by VAS) increased throughout the visit for both groups. In the digital analysis, the mean proportion of redness of the eye decreased from 10.3 to 7.0% for LS and from 10.4 to 6.5% for AD, with the largest difference observed 10 min after application (LS: 8.9%; AD: 6.0%; p = 0.094).
CONCLUSIONS: LS is a nonpharmacological treatment option for ARC, showing no significant difference or relevant numerical inferiority to AD in any parameter studied. It was generally safe and well tolerated.