"Emedastine"

Emedastine An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Log inAccess keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain NavigationBookshelfSearch databaseBooksAll DatabasesAssemblyBiocollectionsBioProjectBioSampleBooksClinVarConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGTRHomoloGeneIdentical Protein GroupsMedGenMeSHNLM and EffectsSummary of Use during LactationEmedastine is an antihistamine that is not approved for marketing in the United States by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but is available in other countries. Preliminary data indicate that oral administration of 2 mg daily produces low levels in milk and does not affect the breastfed infant.When used as an eye drop, emedastine would not be expected to cause any

Efficacy and safety of the emedastine patch, a novel transdermal drug delivery system for allergic rhinitis: Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparative study in patients with seasonal allergic rhinit The emedastine patch was developed in Japan as the first transdermal drug delivery system of emedastine difumarate for allergic rhinitis . A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparison was conducted in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Patients were administered Emedastine patches (4 or 8 mg), placebo, or levocetirizine hydrochloride (5 mg tablet) once daily for 2 weeks (double-dummy technique). The primary objective was superiority to placebo by the change of the total nasal symptom score

Efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1%, emedastine difumarate 0.05%, and loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for Chinese children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized vehicle-controlled study. Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a disease of various agents that affects the physical and mental health of children. Although the most effective therapy has not been found so far, it is essential to explore the considerable therapeutic method. We compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine, emedastine, loteprednol etabonate (LE), and vehicle for treating seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) in Chinese children. Eighty cases of 160 eyes aged from 5 to 10 years with SAC were available and those subjects were randomly distributed into 4 groups. Both their eyes received olopatadine hydrochloride

be used irrespective of disease severity and have been reported by patients to provide significant symptomatic relief. Among topical medications, antihistamines (levocabastine 0.05%, emedastine 0.05%) and mast cell stabilisers (sodium cromoglycate 2%-4%, lodoxamide 0.1%) are commonly used. Surprisingly, despite the major role of histamine in VKC, antihistamines alone have not proven entirely successful

to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45

- these drugs act quickly but consider oral antihistamines if symptoms are severe or not limited to the eye. They may be used concurrently with a mast cell stabiliser (ketotifen has mast cell stabilising properties too). Antazoline preparations are available over-the-counter (OTC).[2]Mast cell stabilisers?[1]Examples - lodoxamide, nedocromil sodium, emedastine, sodium cromoglicate.Use - allergic, seasonal

. or antiinflammatory agent/ (218127)16 NSAIDs.mp. (41937)17 decongestant.mp. or decongestive agent/ (5941)18 ciclosporin.mp. or cyclosporine/ (32263)19 immunomodulator.mp. or immunomodulating agent/ (37436)20 levocabastine/ (1078)21 cromoglycate disodium/ (16126)22 ketotifen fumarate/ or ketotifen/ (5204)23 olopatadine/ (1404)24 azelastine/ (2621)25 nedocromil/ (2111)26 emedastine/ (412)27 alcaftadine/ (102)28 )) OR (cyclosporin)) OR (immunomodulator)) OR (levocabastine)) OR (cromoglycate)) OR (cromoglycate disodium)) OR (ketotifen)) OR (olopatadine)) OR (azelastine)) OR (nedocromil)) OR (emedastine)) OR (alcaftadine)) OR (bepotastine)) OR (epinastine)) OR (naphazoline)) OR (pheniramine)) OR (hydrocortisone)) OR (loteprednol)) OR (fluorometholone)) OR (desonide)) OR (rimexolone)) OR (prednisolone)) OR (dexamethasone

can be assessed by using MoDCs. We examined the suppressive effects of 1 H(2)-type antihistamine (cimetidine) and 5 different H(1)-type antihistamines (cetirizine, diphenhydramine, ketotifen, olopatadine, and emedastine) on the induction of CD86 and IL-8 production by MoDCs from 23 healthy individuals stimulated with histamine. We also examined the responses of MoDCs from 13 patients with chronic

Onset and duration of action of ketotifen 0.025% and emedastine 0.05% in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis : efficacy after repeated pollen challenges in the vienna challenge chamber. To compare the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and the safety of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution and emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution in subjects with seasonal allergic randomised to a treatment sequence (ketotifen followed by emedastine or emedastine followed by ketotifen), receiving 1 drop per eye of ketotifen or emedastine 2 hours after the initial allergen exposure in the pollen chamber. Individual and composite ocular, individual and composite nasal, and total (ocular + nasal) symptom complex scores were determined by repeated exposure to allergen 0-2 hours and 5-8

, during and after a 2-week period of treatment with oral emedastine difumarate, azelastine hydrochloride, and xiao qing long tang (a homeopathic decongestant), as well as intranasal fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray. During the treatment period, there was a significant increase in the right and left minimum cross-sectional areas (MCA) of the nose and/or nasal cavity volumes (NCV) in all groups

Emedastine difumarate versus loratadine in chronic idiopathic urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, controlled European multicentre clinical trial. Emedastine difumarate (2 mg b.i.d.) was compared to loratadine (10 mg o.d.) in a randomized, double-blind, multicentre trial for 4 weeks in 192 patients with idiopathic chronic urticaria. After one week of treatment significant differences were recorded: body skin involvement diminished to 0-10% in 57.1% of emedastine patients vs. 38.2% of loratadine patients (p = 0.0019) and 83.3% had a total urticaria symptom score of 0-1 vs. 64.5% with loratadine (p = 0.0134). After 4 weeks of treatment the efficacy of the two drugs was similar in terms of mean change in total urticaria symptom score (- 5.57 +/- 3.15 with emedastine - 5.67 +/- 3.26

Efficacy of olopatadine HCI 0.1%, ketotifen fumarate 0.025%, epinastine HCI 0.05%, emedastine 0.05% and fluorometholone acetate 0.1% ophthalmic solutions for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a placebo-controlled environmental trial. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and ocular surface variables of olopatadine, ketotifen fumarate, epinastine, emedastine and fluorometholone acetate ophthalmic solutions in preventing the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled study. A total of 100 patients with SAC were randomly assigned to one of five groups, in which they were administered olopatadine, ketotifen fumarate, epinastine, emedastine or fluorometholone acetate, instilled twice daily for 2

Clinical study of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of emedastine difumarate versus cetirizine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. The therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of emedastine difumarate (CAS 87233-62-3) in male and female Caucasian patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis as compared to cetirizine (CAS 83881-51-0) was evaluated. The study was designed as a double-blind , randomised, parallel groups comparison of two antihistamines administered by oral route (emedastine 4 mg o.d. versus cetirizine 10 mg o.d.) in a population of 120 patients suffering from grass pollen allergic rhinitis. The duration of the treatment period was 14 days. Primary efficacy variable was a total symptoms score (including among symptoms nasal congestion, sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal/throat/palate

Clinical study of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of emedastine difumarate versus terfenadine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Emedastine is a new H1-receptor antagonist endowed with potent and selective antihistamine activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of emedastine difumarate (CAS 87233-62-3) in Caucasian patients in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis as compared to terfenadine (CAS 50679-08-8). A total of 130 patients suffering from grass pollen allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to 14 days treatment with either emedastine difumarate (2 mg b.i.d.) or terfenadine (60 mg b.i.d.) in a double-blind, randomised, crossover design. Primary efficacy parameter was a Total Severity Symptom Score, including among

Comparison of emedastine 0.05% or nedocromil sodium 2% eye drops and placebo in controlling local reactions in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis. To assess the efficacy of nedocromil sodium 2% eye drops and emedastine difumarate 0.05% eye drops in controlling the ocular allergic reaction induced by conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC). Thirty subjects with a personal history of allergic conjunctivitis were enrolled (first visit). At the second visit each subject randomly received emedastine 0.05% or nedocromil 2% in one eye and placebo in the other eye. Five minutes after the medication the offending allergen was instilled in both eyes. Ocular redness and itching were evaluated according to a standardized scoring system at 3, 10 and 20-minute intervals after instillation of the allergen

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution with loratadine 10 mg and their combination in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model. When selecting treatment for allergic conjunctivitis, a primary concern is whether to choose local or systemic therapy. This study compared the efficacy of topical emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution , at which the allergen dose was confirmed. At visit 3, which took place 2 weeks later, subjects were randomized to receive either emedastine plus placebo capsules, loratadine plus placebo eyedrops, or both emedastine and loratadine. One hour after receiving study drug, subjects were challenged with allergen in both eyes. Allergic signs and symptoms were graded using standardized 5-point scales

Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy of emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model. Emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution are 2 topical antiallergic agents available in the United States and other countries. Emedastine is indicated for the temporary relief of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Ketotifen is indicated for the temporary relief of ocular itching caused by allergic conjunctivitis. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of these agents in the temporary relief of ocular itching due to allergic conjunctivitis. The 2 agents were compared with each other

Effects of emedastine and cetirizine, alone and with alcohol, on actual driving of males and females. Emedastine is registered in its country of origin (Japan) as an antihistamine for the indication of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Further research on the drug's sedating properties was needed to secure its registration elsewhere. The present study was designed to compare the effects of emedastine 2 design. Driving performance was measured in a standardized test between 3 and 4 h after administration of the morning dose on days 1, 4 and 5. Alcohol, sufficient for achieving a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05 g/dl was given before driving on day 5 of each period. Both emedastine doses similarly and significantly impaired driving in every test. The effects of cetirizine were less. They were

Pharmacokinetic and mass balance study of unlabelled and (14)C-labelled emedastine difumarate in healthy volunteers. 1. In a mass balance study, six healthy male volunteers received a single oral dose of 4 mg (14)C-labelled emedastine difumarate. The pharmacokinetics of the total radioactivity and unchanged drug were assessed over 48 h. Urinary and faecal excretion were measured over 120 h . Additionally, urinary metabolites were investigated. 2. In a single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic study, nine male and nine female healthy volunteers received 2 mg oral emedastine difumarate b.i.d. or 4 mg o.d. for 7 consecutive days. The plasma pharmacokinetics were assessed on day 1 and at steady-state. 3. The mass balance study demonstrated almost complete gastrointestinal absorption

Cost effectiveness of emedastine versus levocabastine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in 7 European countries. To assess the cost effectiveness of emedastine, a new antihistamine, versus levocabastine in the treatment of acute allergic conjunctivitis (AAC) in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. Randomised double-blind multicountry clinical trial followed by economic modelling from the treatment provider perspective. A total of 221 patients (109 emedastine, 112 levocabastine) with AAC were included. The clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of emedastine 0.05% and levocabastine 0.05%, both twice daily, for 42 days, using ocular redness, itching, days without symptoms and clinical failure as outcome measures. The cost of first-line