These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Safety and efficacy of a new preservative-free levocabastine ophthalmic solution (Levofree®) using the conjunctival provocation test].
    Author: Allaire C, Siou-Mermet R, Bassols A.
    Journal: J Fr Ophtalmol; 2012 Sep; 35(7):491-8. PubMed ID: 22498504.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of preservative-free levocabastine 0.05 % ophthalmic solution compared to placebo (vehicle) and to preserved levocabastine 0.05 % ophthalmic suspension in the prevention of allergic conjunctivitis induced by a conjunctival provocation test. METHODS: Ninety-two subjects (18-50 years) with a previous history of allergic conjunctivitis to pollen were randomised to receive either preservative-free levocabastine solution in one eye and preserved levocabastine suspension in the fellow eye (n=69), or preservative-free levocabastine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye (n=23). One drop of each product was administered 10 minutes (visit 3) and 4 hours (visit 4) prior to the provocation test. The primary efficacy criterion was the sum of the itching and conjunctival hyperemia scores assessed at 3, 5 and 10 minutes after the provocation test. The safety evaluation included adverse events, visual acuity, intra-ocular pressure and study drug drop sensation. RESULTS: The efficacy of the preservative-free solution was significantly higher than that of placebo at all time points (P≤0.01) with one exception at visit 4 (3 minutes after the provocation test). It was significantly higher than that of the preserved suspension at visit 3, and equivalent at visit 4. The incidence of adverse events was lower with the preservative-free solution than with the preserved suspension. 94.2 % and 95.7 % subjects rated preservative-free levocabastine drop sensation as "good" or "very good" at visits 3 and 4 respectively, whereas these rates were 68.1 % and 63.8 % with preserved levocabastine. This difference between the two formulations was highly statistically significant (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of preservative-free levocabastine was superior to that of the placebo and of the preserved suspension at visit 3, at least as effective as the preserved suspension at visit 4, and better tolerated at each visit.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]