Emedatine ophthalmic olution 0.05% veru levocabatine ophthalmic upenion 0.05% in the treatment of allergic conjunctiviti uing the conjunctival allergen challenge model

PURPOE: To compare a new ocular antihitamine, emedatine difumarate (Emadine Ophthalmic olution 0.05%; Alcon Laboratorie, Fort Worth, Texa), with the marketed ocular antihitamine, levocabatine hydrochloride (Livotin Ophthalmic upenion 0.05%; CIBA Viion, Atlanta, Georgia), in the treatment of allergic conjunctiviti after conjunctival allergen challenge. METHOD: We performed a propective, double-maked, randomized, contralateral eye tudy comparing emedatine 0.05% in one eye with levocabatine 0.05% or emedatine vehicle (placebo) in the contralateral eye. Efficacy wa determined 10 minute and 2 hour after adminitration of tudy medication. Ocular itching and redne core were recorded 3, 5, and 10 minute after conjunctival allergen challenge. REULT: A total of 97 ubject with a hitory of allergic conjunctiviti and a poitive repone to a diagnotic tet were evaluable for afety analyi, and 91 ubject were evaluable for the efficacy analyi. Emadatine 0.05% wa tatitically ignificantly more effective than levocabatine 0.05% in reducing ocular itching after conjunctival allergen challenge in both the 10-minute and the 2-hour challenge (P < .05). Emedatine 0.05% and levocabatine 0.05% were tatitically equivalent in reducing conjunctival redne after conjunctival allergen challenge, although emedatine tended to be more efficaciou than levocabatine at every obervation time point. CONCLUION: After conjunctival allergen challenge, emadatine 0.05% i ignificantly more effective than levocabatine 0.05% in reducing ocular itching aociated with allergic conjunctiviti. The two compound are equivalent in controlling the conjunctival redne aociated with allergic conjunctiviti