PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lodoxamide 0.1% ophthalmic solution with levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension, each given four times daily (QID) for three months to patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC). METHODS: The study was conducted multinationally according to a triple-masked parallel design in 95 VKC patients, with assessments at baseline then monthly during the three months of treatment. The primary efficacy variables were a Physician's Clinical Judgement Scale and a Patient's Overall Judgement Scale of improvements from baseline. Signs and symptoms of VKC were also assessed. RESULTS: Both primary efficacy variables showed significantly greater overall improvement of VKC from baseline with lodoxamide than levocabastine. The superiority of lodoxamide was demonstrated by the Physician's Clinical Judgement Scale at months 2 and 3, with a trend, at month 1, and by the Patient's Overall Judgement Scale at months 1, 2 and 3. All signs and symptoms of VKC improved significantly from baseline at all time points, regardless of treatment (p<0.001). However, relative to levocabastine, conjunctival discharge, photophobia and lacrimation were significantly reduced by lodoxamide at months 1, 2 and 3, itching at months 2 and 3, and bulbar conjunctiva at month 3. The temporal improvement of superior tarsal papillae did not differ significantly between treatments. Both were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Lodoxamide 0.1% and levocabastine 0.05% eye drops, instilled four times daily for three months, were effective, safe and well tolerated by patients with VKC, but lodoxamide was significantly superior to levocabastine.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution versus rifamycin ophthalmic solution for the treatment of conjunctivitis and blepharitis.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin (0.3%) ophthalmic solution and rifamycin (1%) ophthalmic solution for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and blepharitis was compared in this randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study. Forty-one patients, 19 on ciprofloxacin and 22 on rifamycin, were culture-positive on admission and evaluated for efficacy. There was clinical improvement in more than 90% of patients in each group at the end of the seven-day treatment period. However, clinical cure rates on day 7 appeared to be higher with ciprofloxacin (53%) than rifamycin (23%; p = 0.061, Mann-Whitney test). Bacteriological eradication rates were comparable: the infecting organisms were eradicated in 68% of patients on ciprofloxacin and 77% with rifamycin. There were no serious adverse reactions to either treatment. One patient in each group was withdrawn on account of a mild allergy. In conclusion, topical ciprofloxacin was effective and well tolerated and would be a particularly useful agent for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and blepharitis.

Acute Disease↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin ophthalmic solutions.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and norfloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and blepharitis were compared in a double masked randomised study. A total of 131 patients, 65 treated with ciprofloxacin (42 with conjunctivitis and 23 with blepharitis) and 66 treated with norfloxacin (39 with conjunctivitis and 27 with blepharitis) were enrolled in the study at five centres in France. In the efficacy population, pathogens were eradicated or reduced in 96% (24/25) of patients in the ciprofloxacin group and 89% (24/27) in the norfloxacin group. There was no difference between treatments with regard to eradication of particular pathogens. In the efficacy population, clinical cure or improvement was seen in 96% of the patients (24/25 in the ciprofloxacin group and 26/27 in the norfloxacin group). There were no significant differences between ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin with respect to improvements in four symptoms or ten clinical signs. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported and both ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin were well tolerated.

Anti-Infective Agents↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution in the treatment of conjunctivitis and blepharitis: a comparison with fusidic acid.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution (0.3%) and fusidic acid gel (1%) were compared in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and blepharitis in a randomized, open, parallel group study. Thirty-nine patients, 21 treated with ciprofloxacin solution and 18 treated with fusidic acid gel, were culture-positive on admission and were evaluable for efficacy. At the end of a 7-day treatment, the infecting organism was eradicated in 81% of those treated with ciprofloxacin and 72% of those treated with fusidic acid gel. There was clinical cure or improvement in 95% and 89% respectively. The clinical cure rate appeared to be higher with ciprofloxacin than fusidic acid (62% compared with 28%) but this was related to the higher proportion of patients with acute conjunctivitis in the ciprofloxacin group. Two patients using ciprofloxacin had mild discomfort and stinging on instillation and one given fusidic acid had moderate edema and discomfort; the latter patient stopped treatment. Topical ciprofloxacin is effective and well tolerated and is a useful treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and blepharitis.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Ultrastructure of retinoblastoma (direct sample, culture and graft)].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Eye Neoplasms↗