鱼腥草滴眼液联合奥洛他定滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床观察

目的:观察鱼腥草滴眼液联合奥洛他定滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床疗效和不良反应。方法:选取过敏性结膜炎患者160例眼,按照随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,各80例眼。对照组予以奥洛他定滴眼液进行治疗,观察组在对照组的基础上加用鱼腥草滴眼液(两药间隔时间>10 min)。两组均连续治疗14d。分别于治疗前、治疗后14d随访观察两组患者的症状体征并进行评分,计算两组患者临床有效率,并观察不良反应发生情况。结果:与治疗前比较,两组患者的症状评分和体征评分均有所下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01或P<0.05),且观察组的症状评分和体征评分较对照组下降更多,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);对照组和观察组治疗后的有效率分别为37.50%和77.50%,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:鱼腥草滴眼液联合奥洛他定滴眼液可明显改善过敏性结膜炎患者的临床症状与体征,显著提高疗效,且未出现明显不良反应。     

奥洛他定联合普拉洛芬滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床疗效及对泪膜稳定性的影响

目的 探究奥洛他定联合普拉洛芬滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床疗效及对泪膜稳定性的影响。方法 选取2022年7月～2023年2月期间门诊诊治的过敏性结膜炎患者60例。按随机数字表法将60例患者分为试验组（30例）以及对照组（30例）。对照组给予奥洛他定滴眼液治疗,试验组在对照组的基础上给予普拉洛芬滴眼液治疗。比较两组的临床疗效、泪膜稳定性[泪膜破裂时间（BUT）和角膜荧光素染色试验（CFS）评分]、临床症状改善情况。结果 试验组的治疗总有效率（28例/30例,93.33%）高于对照组（24例/30例,80.00%）(P <0.05)。治疗后与治疗前相比,两组BUT提升,CFS评分下降,且试验组的BUT高于对照组,CFS评分低于对照组（P<0.05）。治疗后两组的畏光、流泪、眼痒、异物感评分与治疗前相比下降,且试验组低于对照组（P <0.05）。结论 过敏性结膜炎患者应用奥洛他定联合普拉洛芬滴眼液有利于维持其泪膜的稳定,改善患者眼部症状,且治疗后临床疗效提高。     

奥洛他定滴眼液和色苷酸钠滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的疗效观察

目的研究比较0.1%盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液（patanol,帕坦洛）和2%色苷酸钠滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的疗效。方法应用奥洛他定滴眼液和色苷酸钠滴眼液分别治疗两组过敏性结膜炎患者,双眼每日各4次,每次间隔4h,共4周。再于连续治疗后2、7、15d和停药后1周随访观察。结果经奥洛他定治疗过敏性结膜炎2、7、15d和停药后1周的主要症状及体征有效率不同程度地高于色苷酸钠。结论眼部过敏性结膜炎的症状及体征改善方面,奥洛他定的总体疗效优于色苷酸钠。     

奥洛他定联合双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床研究

目的:观察奥洛他定联合双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床效果。方法:将2016年8月至2017年12月在我院接受治疗的112例过敏性结膜炎患者随机分为研究组与对照组,每组56例。对照组给予单纯奥洛他定治疗,研究组给予奥洛他定联合双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗,比较两组临床疗效、临床症状评分以及不良反应发生情况。结果:研究组治疗总有效率明显高于对照组,差异显著(P0.05);治疗后,两组临床症状评分明显高于治疗前,且研究组相对更高,差异显著(P0.05);研究组不良反应发生率与对照组相比,差异不显著(P0.05)。结论:采用奥洛他定联合双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎疗效确切,可有效改善患者临床症状,同时不增加不良反应,值得推广。     

奥洛他定滴眼液和依美斯汀滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的疗效比较

目的 研究比较0.1%盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液和0.05%富马酸依美斯汀滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的疗效.方法 应用奥洛他定滴眼液和富马酸依美斯汀滴眼液分别治疗两组过敏性结膜炎患者,连续治疗2周.于治疗前、治疗后第三天、第七天及第十四天随访观察各指标.结果 治疗早期,奥洛他定治疗起效快,患者症状改善较依美斯汀组明显,差异有统计学意义.而治疗后14d,两组疗效差异无统计学意义.结论 在过敏性结膜炎早期如能给予奥洛他定滴眼液治疗,将能更好的缓解患者的症状,改善生活质量.     

溴芬酸钠滴眼液联合奥洛他定滴眼液对过敏性结膜炎患者症状体征改善情况的影响

目的 探究溴芬酸钠滴眼液与奥洛他定滴眼液联合治疗改善过敏性结膜炎患者症状体征的情况。方法 选取2021年5月至2022年5月于南昌大学附属眼科医院就诊的86例过敏性结膜炎患者为观察对象,按随机原则分为对照组（n=43）及观察组（n=43）。对照组予以奥洛他定滴眼液治疗,观察组则予以溴芬酸钠滴眼液与奥洛他定滴眼液联合治疗,均持续用药治疗2周。对比两组治疗前后症状,体征及泪膜功能[泪液分泌实验（SIt）、角膜荧光素染色评分法及泪膜破裂时间（BUT）]变化,并记录不良反应的发生情况。结果 对比于治疗前,治疗2周后两组症状总评分、体征总评分均降低,观察组较对照组更低,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。对比于治疗前,治疗2周后两组SIt、BUT值均增高,观察组较对照组更高;治疗2周后两组角膜荧光素染色评分均降低,观察组较对照组更低,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组的不良反应总发生率[9.30%(4/43)]与对照组[6.98%(3/43)]对比,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 溴芬酸钠滴眼液与奥洛他定滴眼液联合治疗过敏性结膜炎的效果确切,能更好地促进症状及体征改...     

奥洛他定与双氯芬酸钠滴眼液对过敏性结膜炎患者的疗效评价

目的:评价奥洛他定与双氯芬酸钠滴眼液对过敏性结膜炎患者的疗效,为治疗过敏性结膜炎提供参考。方法:选取2012年3月—2015年6月间诊治的过敏性结膜炎患者110例,按照治疗方案的不同将其分为观察组65例和对照组45例;观察组患者均给予奥洛他定与双氧芬酸钠滴眼液联用治疗,对照组患者均给予单用双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗;比较两组患者治疗后的总有效率和不良反应的发生率。结果:观察组患者治疗后的总有效率为95.38%明显优于对照组为78.26%(P<0.05);观察组患者不良反应的发生率为6.62%优于对照组为17.78%(P<0.05)。结论:奥洛他定与双氯芬酸钠滴眼液用于治疗过敏性结膜炎患者的疗效优于单用双氯芬酸钠滴眼液的疗效。     

奥洛他定联合双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎的疗效观察

目的 探讨分析奥洛他定联合双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗不同种类过敏性结膜炎的疗效及安全性.方法 随机选取2014年1月~2016年1月于我院首次确诊为过敏性结膜炎的患者198例分成两组,每组各99例.对照组单用奥洛他定进行治疗,观察组联用奥洛他定和双氯芬酸钠滴眼液进行治疗.对比观察两组患者治疗疗效及安全性情况.结果 两组患者治疗前症状体征总得分差异不明显(P>0.05).治疗2周后,观察组患者症状体征总得分平均(1.96±0.16)分,对照组为(9.41±1.21)分,两组差异显著(P<0.05).对照组患者治疗总有效率为66.39%,观察组患者治疗总有效率为92.93%,两组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).两组均未见明显不良反应(P>0.05).结论 奥洛他定联合双氯芬酸钠滴眼液治疗过敏性结膜炎能有效改善症状,减轻体征,且安全性较好.     

鱼腥草滴眼液联合奥洛他定治疗小儿过敏性结膜炎47例临床观察

目的观察鱼腥草滴眼液联合奥洛他定治疗小儿过敏性结膜炎的临床疗效。方法选取2016年2月至2018年3月我院眼科诊治的94例过敏性结膜炎患儿,随机分为治疗组和对照组,各47例。对照组给予奥洛他定滴眼液治疗,治疗组在对照组治疗方法的基础加用鱼腥草滴眼液。治疗2周后,比较2组的临床疗效、临床症状及体征评分、不良反应的发生情况和眼结膜充血水肿、异物感、眼痒、眼红、眼睑结膜滤泡、眼睑乳头临床症状及体征消失时间。结果治疗组总有效率(91.49%)高于对照组(74.47%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05);治疗后2组临床症状、体征评分均低于治疗前(P0.05),且治疗组下降更显著(P0.01);治疗组眼结膜充血水肿、异物感、眼痒、眼红、眼睑结膜滤泡、眼睑乳头临床症状及体征消失时间均短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.01); 2组不良反应总发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论鱼腥草滴眼液联合奥洛他定治疗小儿过敏性结膜炎临床疗效显著,可有效改善眼部相关症状、体征,且作用时间更为快速,安全可靠。     

奥洛他定滴眼液治疗变态反应性结膜炎的临床观察

目的观察奥洛他定滴眼液在变态反应性结膜炎中的临床疗效。方法入选变态反应性结膜炎患者56例（88眼）,给予患者0．196盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液,每眼1滴,早晚各1次,共7d。观察治疗前后变态反应性结膜炎各项症状与体征的变化情况。结果奥洛他定滴眼液治疗变态反应性结膜炎的总有效率为94．696．变态反应性结膜炎的各项症状和体征均得到显著的改善。治疗期间未观察到明显的不良反应。结论奥洛他定滴眼液治疗变态反应性结膜炎具有较好的疗效和安全性。     

地塞米松联合盐酸奥洛他定治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床观察

目的 探讨0.1 %盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液联合0.1%地塞米松治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床疗效.方法 选取2011年12月-2012年12月在我院眼科门诊接受治疗的过敏性结膜炎患者180例,将患者随机分为试验组和对照组,分别给予0.1%盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液＋0.1%地塞米松治疗和单纯给予0.1%盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液治疗,1个疗程后,比较两组的临床疗效.结果 经秩和检验,试验组的治疗效果等级优于对照组（u=-3.23,P=0.0012）.结论 0.1% 盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液联合0.1%地塞米松治疗过敏性结膜炎,与单纯0.1% 盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液相比,疗效更确切、安全,值得临床进一步推广.     

奥洛他定治疗过敏性结膜炎临床观察

目的 观察奥洛他定治疗过敏性结膜炎的临床治疗效果.方法 将67例过敏性结膜炎患者,随机分为观察组(34例)和对照组(33例).观察组给予0.1％盐酸奥洛他定滴眼液,每眼1滴/次,2次/d.早晚各1次,眼用;对照组给予2％色甘酸钠滴眼液,每眼1滴/次,4次/d,眼用.均治疗7d.观察两组治疗后1h、7d、30 d的症状改变情况及不良反应的发生情况.结果 观察组治疗7d后各症状的总有效率分别为91.18％ 、91.18％和85.19％,均优于对照组的72.7％、75.76％、85.19％(均P＜0.05).结论 奥洛他定用于治疗过敏性结膜炎起效快、作用时间长、安全性高,值得临床推广使用.     

盐酸奥洛他定片治疗过敏性鼻炎疗效和安全性的多中心临床研究

目的:观察盐酸奥洛他定片治疗过敏性鼻炎的临床疗效及安全性。方法:采用随机、双盲、双模拟、多中心、平行对照的方法,试验组和对照组各150例,分别采用盐酸奥洛他定片,bid,每次1片;或氯雷他定片,qd,每次1片,2组分别给予盐酸奥洛他定和氯雷他定模拟片,连续给药14 d。疗程结束时以症状体征总积分下降值、综合疗效改善百分率来评估其临床疗效,以不良事件及不良反应、实验室检查等来评估其安全性。结果:共有147例患者纳入疗效分析,试验组(n=73)及对照组(n=74),综合疗效有效率分别为90.41%和83.78%(P>0.05)。35例患者发生54例次不良事件(试验组17人26例次,对照组18人28例次),其中48例次不良事件与药物相关,主要表现为口干、头晕、嗜睡、乏力等,此为相关药物不良反应。而2组间不良事件及不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。无严重不良事件发生。结论:盐酸奥洛他定片可有效控制过敏性鼻炎症状,疗效显著,安全性好。     

盐酸奥洛他定在中国变应性鼻炎人群的非劣效临床研究设计及其定量分析*

目的:通过非劣性设计,评价盐酸奥洛他定片剂治疗变应性鼻炎的安全性和有效性。方法:以盐酸氯雷他定片为对照,采用随机、双盲双模拟、多中心、平行对照、非劣效临床研究。两组各120例。试验组早晚各1次口服盐酸奥洛他定,每次5 mg;对照组早晨服用氯雷他定片10 mg。按双模拟方法编盲,以症状体征总积分下降值为主要疗效指标,非劣效标准(δ)设为1分,疗程2周。结果:用药后2周,两组各项症状明显改善,症状体征总积分和生活质量评估等级较用药前显著下降(P<0.01);作为主要疗效指标的症状总积分差值(FAS集),组间差值95%可信区间为[-0.260,0.880],即试验组不劣于对照组(P<0.05)。对照组有效率为61.5%,不良反应发生率为9.2%;试验组有效率62.4%,不良反应发生率为5.8%,组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:盐酸奥洛他定治疗变应性鼻炎疗效确切,不劣于对照药氯雷他定,患者耐受性好,未发现严重不良反应。     

普拉洛芬联合玻璃酸钠治疗干眼症疗效观察

目的：观察普拉洛芬滴眼液联合玻璃酸钠滴眼液治疗干眼症临床疗效观察。方法回顾我院门诊2010年9月~2013年6月诊断为干眼症的病例120例240只眼,随机分成对照组和治疗组。对照组给予玻璃酸钠滴眼液,治疗组给予普拉洛芬滴眼液联合玻璃酸钠滴眼液。同时两组均给予物理方法治疗,如眼睑清洁热敷、睑板腺按摩等,比较两组的疗效。结果治疗组总有效率为96.7%,对照组总有效率为88.3%,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论玻璃酸钠滴眼液联合普拉洛芬滴眼液治疗干眼症,有显著疗效。     

Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked, environmental study of patient preference

BACKGROUND: Ocular allergies cause itching, redness, chemosis, tearing, and swelling of the eyelids in sensitized individuals. The options available for treatment of ocular allergy include olopatadine 0.1% (Opatanol; Patanol [US]) and ketotifen 0.025% (Zaditen; Zaditor [US]). Patient preference for an eye drop can often be a primary factor in determining the level of compliance and satisfaction with any given therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study sought patient perspective on eye drop efficacy in controlling signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and eye drop comfort. Also evaluated were the factors considered by patients when making decisions of preference. METHODS: One hundred patients with previous history and current symptoms of seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were enrolled at two centers (Athens, Greece, N = 50; Padova, Italy, N = 50) for this two visit, double-masked study. Qualified patients received two masked bottles of medication (one olopatadine, one ketotifen) and were asked to use both medications as needed over the course of four weeks, but not to exceed usage of two drops of medication per eye per day. At the second visit, patients answered five questions comparing the two masked medications in terms of preference, drop comfort, and efficacy in treatment of signs and symptoms. Patients also defined the factors upon which they based these decisions. RESULTS: A significantly greater percentage of patients (81%) selected olopatadine when asked which medication they preferred; which they found more comfortable; which they found more efficacious in reducing symptoms of allergy; and which they would select if visiting the doctor's office (P < 0.0001). Seventy-six percent (76%) of patients considered both efficacy and comfort when making their preference decisions (P < 0.0001). No adverse events were volunteered or elicited. CONCLUSION: In this study, patients preferred to use the anti-allergy eye drop olopatadine over ketotifen after using both drops and evaluating relative efficacy and comfort during the course of four weeks. A significantly greater percentage of the patients preferred to use olopatadine during the study period, found it more efficacious and comfortable, and would select olopatadine if visiting their doctor's office during allergy season.     

Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Patanol) and epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution (Elestat) are two topical antiallergic agents. Olopatadine is indicated for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis that include itching, redness, tearing, lid swelling, and chemosis. Epinastine is indicated for the prevention of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine and epinastine in the prevention of itching and conjunctival redness in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally-controlled, single center allergen challenge study. Ninety-six subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were screened, and the 66 who responded to conjunctival allergen challenge at visits 1 and 2 were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups at visit 3 to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine in one eye and epinastine in the fellow eye, (2) olopatadine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye, and (3) epinastine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye. Five minutes after study drop instillation, subjects were bilaterally challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at Visits 1 and 2. Subjective itching assessments were given at 3 min, 5 min, and 7 min post challenge. Objective redness and chemosis assessments were made at 10 min, 15 min, and 20 min post challenge. Paired sample two-tailed t-tests were performed on the mean scores at each time point to assess statistical significance in the differences between treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES; RESULTS: Fifty-three subjects were randomized into the olopatadine/epinastine treatment group, the primary analysis group. Olopatadine treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean itching and conjunctival redness scores than the contralateral epinastine treated eyes, -0.19 (p = 0.003) and -0.52 (p < 0.001), respectively. Olopatadine treated eyes also exhibited significantly less chemosis -0.24 (p < 0.001), ciliary redness -0.55 (p < 0.001), and episcleral redness -0.58 (p < 0.001) than epinastine treated eyes. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than epinastine in controlling itching, redness and chemosis associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the CAC model.     

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of olopatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION: Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available in three forms, including oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications focus on the use of olopatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes. AREAS COVERED: This article was formed from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, treatment guidelines and clinical studies on children and adults. Articles that have been selected evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. EXPERT OPINION: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in alleviating the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. Olopatadine is a viable alternative and addition to the mainstay therapy of these conditions with intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines. The compliance of the patients would be improved if a once-per-day formulation of olopatadine was developed for intranasal application. The future treatments of allergic rhinitis will probably involve a combination of intranasal antihistamine and steroid because clinical trials have demonstrated an improved efficacy without a significant increase in adverse effects.     

Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked,environmental study of patient preference

SUMMARY

Background: Ocular allergies cause itching, redness, chemosis, tearing, and swelling of the eyelids in sensitized individuals. The options available for treatment of ocular allergy include olopatadine 0.1% (Opatanol; Patanol [US]*) and ketotifen 0.025% (Zaditen; Zaditor [US]?). Patient preference for an eye drop can often be a primary factor in determining the level of compliance and satisfaction with any given therapy.

Objective: This study sought patient perspective on eye drop efficacy in controlling signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and eye drop comfort. Also evaluated were the factors considered by patients when making decisions of preference.

Methods: One hundred patients with previous history and current symptoms of seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were enrolled at two centers (Athens, Greece, N = 50; Padova, Italy, N = 50) for this two visit, double-masked study. Qualified patients received two masked bottles of medication (one olopatadine, one ketotifen) and were asked to use both medications as needed over the course of four weeks, but not to exceed usage of two drops of medication per eye per day. At the second visit, patients answered five questions comparing the two masked medications in terms of preference, drop comfort, and efficacy in treatment of signs and symptoms. Patients also defined the factors upon which they based these decisions.

Results: A significantly greater percentage of patients (81%) selected olopatadine when asked which medication they preferred; which they found more comfortable; which they found more efficacious in reducing symptoms of allergy; and which they would select if visiting the doctor's office (P < 0.0001). Seventy-six percent (76%) of patients considered both efficacy and comfort when making their preference decisions (P < 0.0001). No adverse events were volunteered or elicited.

Conclusion: In this study, patients preferred to use the anti-allergy eye drop olopatadine over ketotifen after using both drops and evaluating relative efficacy and comfort during the course of four weeks. A significantly greater percentage of the patients preferred to use olopatadine during the study period, found it more efficacious and comfortable, and would select olopatadine if visiting their doctor's office during allergy season.