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: Topical levocabastine compared with oral loratadine for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Swedish GP Allergy Team.
    Journal: Allergy; 1994 Sep; 49(8):611-5. PubMed ID: 7653738.
    Abstract:
    This multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial was initiated to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two antihistamines, topical levocabastine (eye-drops and nasal spray) and oral loratadine, for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in the primary care setting. A total of 95 adult patients participated in the study with a treatment duration of 5 weeks. Forty-seven patients were randomized to receive twice daily levocabastine eye-drops and nasal spray plus an oral placebo, and 48 to receive once daily oral loratadine with placebo eye-drops and nasal spray. Naphazoline eye-drops and xylometazoline nasal spray were permitted as rescue medication. No statistically significant intergroup differences in therapeutic efficacy were observed. Symptom severity was comparable in the two treatment groups throughout the trial period. At the end of the study, 86% of levocabastine-treated patients considered global therapeutic efficacy to be excellent or good, as compared with 77% of those who received loratadine. This difference was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the use of rescue medication or in the incidence or severity of adverse events in the two treatment groups. In conclusion, levocabastine eye-drops and nasal spray appear to be as effective and well tolerated as oral loratadine for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]