throbber
EuropeanfJournal
`Ophthalmology
`
`0
`
`Vol. 13 No.2, 2003
`CONTENTS
`
`'l'
`
`_,
`
`[3
`
`I
`
`9(- .
`1133610“ cytology on conjunctiva and cornea in dry eye patients establishes a correlation
`ngween squamous metapiasia and dry eye clinical severityl115
`J_ Murube, l_. Rivas
`K. _.
`Tl e anll'a'lf'ngc effects of a cromolyn sodium-chlorpheniramine combination compared to ketotifen
`l .
`'n1the conjunctival allergen challengemodel [4/66 OW (44/6 128
`:4. Leonaro'r. F. Buses, M. Tavofai‘o, A. G. Secchi
`Factors influencing visual outcome after penetrating keratoplasty combined with intraocular lens implantation .................................. 134
`J B: Jonas, RM. Rank, WM. Budde, G. Sauder
`
`Complications of laser in'situ keratomileusis (LASlK) .............................................................................................................................. 139
`K.F. Tabbara, H.F. El-She/kh, C.L. Vera-Crista
`
`Visually significant cpacification of hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses - a clinico-pathological analySIS 147
`“Ky Yong, FEA. Netto, W-J. Heng, E.-Y. Yap, H.-M. Lee, M.M.L. Ng, K.-G. Au Eong
`
`Prevention of posterior capsule opacification using capsular tension ring for zonular defects in cataract surgery
`D, D’E/iseo, B. Pastena, L. Longanesi, F. Grisanti, V. Negrini
`
`151
`
`The effects of some antibiotics on sheep lens glucose 6—phosphate dehydrogenase inwtro 155
`$. Beydemir. D. N. Ku/acog/u, M. Qiftci, O. I. KUfreviog/u
`
`Four years later: A clinical update on latanoprost ................................................................................................................................... 162
`E. Ravinet, A. Mermoud, R. Brignoli
`
`Endotoxins in ophthalmic viscosurgical devices ..................................................................................................................................... 176
`H. Burkhard Dick, A.J. Augustin, I Paku/a, N. Pfeiffer
`Immunological effects of allopurinol in the treatment of experimental autoimmune uveitis (EAU) after onset of the disease ................ 185
`F.H. Grus, A.J. Augustin, K. Loefllei: J. Lutz, N. Pfeiffer
`
`Thenmanagement of giant retinal tears with silicone oil ........................................................................................................................... 192
`N. Unlu, H. Kocaogian, M.A. Acar, M. Sargin, 8.8. Asian, 8. Duman
`
`Magnetic resonance imaging analysis of anterior and posterior eye segment displacement during ocular gaze shifts 196
`N. Eter, S. Gar/0e, D. Pau/eit, 77 SchUttoff, H. SchL‘i/ler
`
`Autogenous versus allograft fascia lata in frontal sling surgery - long-term results 202
`C. Gurdei, U. Erdener, M. Orhan, M. lrkec
`
`SHORT COMMUNICATIONS
`
`209
`
`215
`
`I
`
`givergent Strabismus fixus - A case report .............................................................................................................................................. 207
`‘K- Shanna, J.S. Grewal, M. MacDonald
`BEUIBrfindings in cerebrO-oculo—facial-ske|etal syndrome (Pena—Shokeir—ll syndrome)
`'
`- JONES. U. Mayei; WM. Budde
`Minggement of free floating iris cysts in the anterior chamber - A case report 212
`'
`-
`ner, S. Kaynak, N. Kocak, G. Qingil
`grganized vitreous hemorrhage masquerading as an optic disc melanocytoma
`C- W, S. Prasad, I.G. Rennie
`T-hharfgidnlneovascularization secondary to vitrectomy for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: Report of an unusual case ....................... 218
`C
`ell.- f‘EITarr. R. Dammacco, G. M. Ouaranta. N. Cardascia, F. Bose/a, C. Sborgia
`affifignrficular edema associated with latanoprost therapy in a pseudophakic vitrectomized patient
`M. Jé
`<>val of Silicone orl endotamponade........................................................................................................................................... 221
`I
`98!. .18, Jonas
`“khan _
`.
`I
`Abst
`F _:-..'
`1 l W
`if from the Third CAFIAMeetingk 223 .
`
`New |
`
`—_
`terns
`
`;T
`
`J
`
`24o
`
`ll
`
`|
`
`|
`
`,
`
`I
`
`
`
`.
`
`the
`ges
`nal
`l 3
`he—
`.
`We
`hes
`a”
`
`D.,
`
`:
`
`-free'
`-
`
`)0
`
`.——_-’
`
`lPR2018—01020 and lPR2018—01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 1
`
`—
`
`IPR2018-01020 and IPR2018-01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 1
`
`

`

`European Journal of Ophthalmology / Vol. 13 no. 2, 2003 / pp. 128-133
`
`The anti-allergic effects of a cromolyn
`sodium-chlorpheniramine combination
`compared to ketotifen in the conjunctival
`allergen challenge model
`
`A. LEONARDI, F. BUSCA, M. TAVOLATO, A.G. SECCHI
`
`Department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology and Ocular Inflammation Unit, University of Padova - Italy
`
`PURPOSE. To compare the inhibitory effects of a topical combination product, cromolyn sodi-
`um (DSCG) 4% with the antihistamine, chlorpheniramine, with those of topical ketotifen
`0.05% on the clinical allergic reaction induced by the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC).
`METHODS. Ten allergic but non-active patients were challenged in both eyes with increasing
`doses of specific allergen to obtain a positive bilateral reaction (visit 1). They were then
`rechallenged after 1 week to confirm the allergic threshold dose response (visit 2). After 2
`weeks, a third CAC was performed bilaterally 30 minutes after topical application of DSCG-
`chlorpheniramine in one eye and ketotifen in the contralateral eye in a double-masked fash-
`ion (visit 3). Clinical signs and symptoms were registered 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes after
`challenge using the standard scoring system. Tear cytology was performed 30 minutes af-
`ter challenge.
`RESULTS. Comparing the two drug effects at visit 3, DSCG-chlorpheniramine was shown to
`be superior to ketotifen at all time points for itching (p<0.01) and at 5 minutes for redness
`(p<0.01). For the total signs score, DSCG-chlorpheniramine was shown to be superior to
`ketotifen at all time points (p<0.01), and at 10 and 15 minutes for the total symptoms score
`(p<0.05). Compared to visit 2, DSCG-chlorpheniramine significantly lowered itching
`(p<0.001) and redness (p<0.05) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes after challenge. Ketotifen sig-
`nificantly lowered itching at 5 and 10 minutes (p<0.001) and redness at 5, 10, and 15 min-
`utes (p<0.05). Both drugs reduced the total number of cells evaluated by tear cytology dur-
`ing the early-phase reaction (p<0.05).
`CONCLUSIONS. DSCG-chlorpheniramine was found to be more effective than ketotifen at pre-
`venting itching and redness in the CAC model. (Eur J Ophthalmol 2003; 13: 128-33)
`
`KEY WORDS. Allergic conjunctivitis, Conjunctival allergen challenge, Chlorpheniramine, Sodi-
`um cromolyn, Ketotifen
`
`Accepted: January 20, 2003
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Itching, redness, and lid swelling are the typical in-
`flammatory signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic
`conjunctivitis (SAC), and are the result of single or re-
`
`1120-6721/128-06$03.00/0
`
`peated natural challenges by environmental allergens
`(1). The reaction induced by specific conjunctival al-
`lergen challenge (CAC) accurately reproduces the signs
`and symptoms of an acute seasonal allergic reaction.
`In the CAC model, a single episode is induced in a
`
`IPR2018-01020 and IPR2018-01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 2
`
`

`

`Leonardi et al
`
`standardized manner that allows for a homogeneous
`baseline for all patients in the study independent of
`the type of allergen sensitization (2). This model is a
`reliable method for quantifying and comparing the ef-
`ficacy of various therapies in the prophylactic treat-
`ment of allergic conjunctivitis. As in SAC, the reac-
`tion in the CAC model is characterized by mast cell
`activation and the release of preformed and newly formed
`mediators such as histamine, tryptase, prostaglandins,
`leukotrienes, and cytokines (3, 4), as well as subse-
`quent activation of vascular endothelial cells, expression
`of adhesion molecules (5), and inflammatory cell in-
`filtration. In the acute allergic reaction, either induced
`by environmental allergen exposure or by the CAC,
`most of the signs and symptoms are related to hist-
`amine release from mast cells (6). In fact, histamine
`accounts for 98% of the material released by mast
`cell degranulation (7). Several topical mast cell sta-
`bilizers and antihistamines have been shown to sig-
`nificantly reduce the ocular allergic symptoms in both
`the SAC and CAC models (8, 9).
`The combination product investigated, 4% cromolyn
`sodium–0.2% chlorpheniramine (DSCG-chlorpheniramine),
`is an anti-allergic ophthalmic solution that combines
`the mast cell stabilizing effect of cromolyn sodium
`(DSCG) with the antihistaminic effect of the H1-re-
`ceptor antagonist chlorpheniramine. Mast cell stabi-
`lizers prevent calcium influx across cell membranes,
`thereby preventing mast cell degranulation and me-
`diator release (10). Chlorpheniramine is a first-gen-
`eration anti-H1 alkylamine compound with high H1
`receptor affinity (11). Topical application of chlor-
`pheniramine is rapidly effective in reducing itching
`without systemic side effects (12). Ketotifen fumarate
`0.05% ophthalmic solution is a cyproheptadine de-
`rived anti-allergic drug that possesses both a mast
`cell stabilizing effect and H1-receptor antagonistic ac-
`tivity (13). The commercial combination of DSCG-chlor-
`pheniramine has been widely used in Italy since 1985.
`The efficacy of this combination, however, has not
`been compared to that of one of the new anti-aller-
`gic products that combine in one drug the pharma-
`cologic properties of two, such as ketotifen.
`The current study was performed to determine the
`protective effect of two dual action anti-allergic top-
`ical preparations – DSCG-chlorpheniramine and ke-
`totifen – on the onset of the allergic conjunctival re-
`action induced by the CAC model.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`
`Ten patients (age range 18–47 years; 6 men, 4 women)
`with a clinical history of SAC were included in this
`randomized, double-masked study. All patients were
`asymptomatic and had positive results on a prick test
`(wheal diameter >3 mm) as confirmation of their al-
`lergic medical history. The allergen that gave the great-
`est response by prick test and/or that was most clin-
`ically correlated with seasonal symptoms was cho-
`sen for challenge: seven patients were challenged with
`rye grass and three with Parietaria officinalis. The CAC
`was performed according to the standardized proce-
`dure described by Abelson et al (2).
`At visit 1, demographic data, medical and medica-
`tion history, and informed consent were obtained. Base-
`line slit-lamp examination and visual acuity (Snellen)
`were also recorded at each visit before challenge. The
`allergen threshold dose that induced a positive con-
`junctival reaction was determined by challenging both
`eyes with one 20-µL drop of allergen in serial dilu-
`tions (10–50–100–200–300 Allergen Unit RAST [AUR]
`/ml), increasing the dose every 15 minutes until a clin-
`ical reaction with a score of 2+ itching and redness
`was obtained. Seven days later (visit 2), a second chal-
`lenge with the last threshold dose identified at visit 1
`was repeated to confirm the conjunctival reaction. Af-
`ter 2 more weeks (visit 3: drug evaluation day), pa-
`tients were administered a single dose of ketotifen
`0.05% in one eye and DSCG-chlorpheniramine 4% in
`the contralateral eye in a double-masked fashion 30
`minutes prior to CAC using the threshold dose.
`Conjunctival signs
`(redness, chemosis, eyelid
`swelling) were assessed by the investigators and symp-
`toms (itching, burning, foreign body sensation, tear-
`ing) by the patients using a score of 0 (none) to 4 (se-
`vere) for each eye before drug administration (time
`0), immediately before allergen challenge, and 5, 10,
`15, and 20 minutes after challenge.
`Tear samples (2 µL) were collected from both eyes
`with a capillary tube 1 hour before CAC and within 30
`minutes after CAC to determine inflammatory cell num-
`ber. Tears were placed on pre-colored slides (Test-
`simplets, Roche, Germany) and the numbers of neu-
`trophils, eosinophils, and lymphocytes were immedi-
`ately counted in five consecutive microscopic fields
`at 250x magnification power.
`The primary efficacy variables were itching and red-
`
`129
`
`IPR2018-01020 and IPR2018-01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 3
`
`

`

`DSCG-chlorpheniramine and ketotifen in CAC
`
`ness. Secondary efficacy variables were the sum scores
`of signs and symptoms, and tear cytology. The mean
`change from baseline itching and redness between
`visit 3 (eyes pretreated with drug and then challenged)
`and visit 2 (the baseline challenge reaction) provided
`a measure of clinical efficacy of a drug treatment. Dif-
`ferences in clinical scores between the two active treat-
`ments were also determined. The nonparametric
`Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed on itching,
`redness, and total sign and symptom scores at each
`time point, with significance set at p<0.05. Data are
`presented as mean and standard deviation (±SD). In
`addition, clinical significance was defined as at least
`a one-unit difference in the mean score of itching and
`redness from visit 3 to visit 2.
`
`RESULTS
`
`All the enrolled subjects completed the study and
`were evaluable for efficacy. No adverse events were
`reported in this study. There were no significant changes
`between visual acuity or baseline slit-lamp parame-
`ters between visits. The conjunctival signs and symp-
`toms induced by challenge were not statistically dif-
`ferent between contralateral eyes of the same sub-
`ject, and were reproducible from visit 1 to visit 2.
`For the efficacy variable itching (Fig. 1), DSCG-chlor-
`pheniramine was statistically significantly superior to
`ketotifen at all time points (5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes)
`(p<0.01), whereas for redness, DSCG-chlorpheniramine
`was statistically significantly superior to ketotifen at
`5 minutes after challenge (p<0.01) (Fig. 2). DSCG-chlor-
`pheniramine eyes demonstrated statistically signifi-
`cantly lower mean itching (p<0.01) and redness
`scores (p<0.05) at all time points compared to non-
`treated eyes (visit 2, the baseline challenge reaction)
`(Figs. 1 and 2). Ketotifen showed statistically signif-
`icantly lower mean scores at 5 and 10 minutes for
`itching (p<0.01), and at 10 and 15 minutes for red-
`ness (p<0.05) (Figs. 1 and 2).
`Both DSCG-chlorpheniramine and ketotifen showed
`a clinically significant reduction in itching after chal-
`lenge at 5 and 10 minutes (Tab. I), whereas only DSCG-
`chlorpheniramine showed a clinically significant re-
`duction in conjunctival redness at 10 and 15 minutes
`(Tab. II).
`The mean sum score of signs (Fig. 3) was signifi-
`cantly lower in DSCG-chlorpheniramine–treated eyes
`
`130
`
`Fig. 1 - Mean score of the primary variable, itching, after bilateral
`conjunctival allergen challenge at visit 2, and after pretreatment at
`visit 3 with either cromolyn sodium (DSCG)-chlorpheniramine in one
`eye or ketotifen in the contralateral eye. At visit 3, DSCG-chlorpheni-
`ramine was statistically superior to ketotifen at all time points
`(‡p<0.01). Both drugs significantly reduced itching compared to the
`respective reaction obtained at visit 2 (** p<0.01).
`
`Fig. 2 - Mean score of the primary variable, redness, after conjuncti-
`val allergen challenge. At visit 3, cromolyn sodium (DSCG)-chlor-
`pheniramine was statistically superior to ketotifen at 5 minutes
`(‡p<0.01). Both drugs significantly reduced redness compared to the
`respective reaction obtained at visit 2 (*p<0.05).
`
`than ketotifen-treated eyes at all time points (p<0.01),
`whereas the mean sum score of symptoms (Fig. 4) was
`significantly lower in DSCG-chlorpheniramine versus
`ketotifen eyes at 10 and 15 minutes (p<0.05). DSCG-
`chlorpheniramine demonstrated significantly lower mean
`scores at all time points compared to visit 2, where-
`
`IPR2018-01020 and IPR2018-01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 4
`
`

`

`Leonardi et al
`
`TABLE I - MEAN ± STANDARD DEVIATION (SD) OF ITCHING SCORES AT VISIT 2 (no pretreatment) AND VISIT 3
`(pretreatment with drugs) AND MEAN DIFFERENCE (D) BETWEEN VISIT 2 AND VISIT 3
`
`Minutes
`after challenge
`
`DSCG + chlorpheniramine
`Visit
`3±SD
`
`Visit
`2±SD
`
`∆
`
`5
`10
`15
`20
`
`1.5±0.7
`2±0
`1.3±0.3
`0.8±0.6
`
`0.2±0.4
`0.6±0.5
`0.6±0.6
`0.1±0.3
`
`1.3±0.8*
`1.4±0.5*
`0.7±0.4
`0.7±0.4
`
`Visit
`2±SD
`
`1.5±0.7
`2±0
`1.4±0.5
`0.8±0.6
`
`Ketotifen
`Visit
`3±SD
`
`0.3±0.4
`0.8±0.6
`0.9±0.9
`0.4±0.6
`
`∆
`
`1.2±0.6*
`1.2±0.6*
`0.5±0.6
`0.4±0.5
`
`*Clinically significant (>1-unit difference in itching)
`
`TABLE II - MEAN ± STANDARD DEVIATION (SD) OF REDNESS SCORES AT VISIT 2 (no pretreatment) AND VISIT 3
`(pretreatment with drugs) AND MEAN DIFFERENCE (D) BETWEEN VISIT 2 AND VISIT 3
`
`Minutes
`after challenge
`
`DSCG + chlorpheniramine
`Visit
`3±SD
`
`Visit
`2±SD
`
`∆
`
`5
`10
`15
`20
`
`1±0
`2.1±0.3
`2.2±0.4
`1.8±0.7
`
`0.2±0.4
`1±0.4
`1±0.6
`1±0.8
`
`0.8±0.4
`1.1±0.5*
`1.2±0.6*
`0.8±0.6
`
`Visit
`2±SD
`
`1±0
`2.1±0.3
`2.2±0.4
`1.8±0.7
`
`Ketotifen
`Visit
`3±SD
`
`0.5±0.7
`1.5±0.6
`1.6±0.6
`1.6±0.9
`
`∆
`
`0.5±0.5
`0.6±0.5
`0.6±0.5
`0.2±0.5
`
`*Clinically significant (>1-unit difference in redness)
`
`Fig. 3 - Mean sum score of signs (redness, chemosis, eyelid swelling)
`after challenge in eyes pretreated with either cromolyn sodium
`(DSCG)-chlorpheniramine or ketotifen compared with the respective
`reaction at visit 2 (**p<0.01, *p<0.05). At visit 3, DSCG-chlorpheni-
`ramine was statistically superior to ketotifen at all time points
`(‡p<0.01).
`
`Fig. 4 - Mean sum score of symptoms (itching, burning, foreign body
`sensation, tearing) after challenge in eyes pretreated with either cro-
`molyn sodium (DSCG)-chlorpheniramine or ketotifen compared with
`the respective control reaction without pretreatment at visit 2
`(**p<0.005, *p<0.05). At visit 3, DSCG-chlorpheniramine was statisti-
`cally superior to ketotifen at 10 and 15 minutes (‡p<0.05).
`
`131
`
`IPR2018-01020 and IPR2018-01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 5
`
`

`

`DSCG-chlorpheniramine and ketotifen in CAC
`
`as these scores in ketotifen-treated eyes were signif-
`icantly lower only at 5 and 10 minutes after challenge.
`Tear cytology performed 30 minutes after CAC showed
`a statistically significant reduction in the total num-
`ber of inflammatory cells in the eyes pretreated with
`each drug (visit 3) compared to visit 2 (DSCG-chlor-
`pheniramine: 12.5±19 versus no pretreatment,
`27±35, p<0.05; ketotifen: 11±22 versus no pretreat-
`ment, 28±30, p<0.05). The numbers of single cell pop-
`ulations of eosinophils, neutrophils, and lymphocytes
`were also reduced at visit 3 compared to visit 2; how-
`ever, these differences were not statistically signifi-
`cant because of the high SD around the mean (data
`not shown).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The clinical hallmarks of allergic conjunctivitis are
`ocular itching and conjunctival redness. The CAC mod-
`el allows for the precise evaluation of itching and red-
`ness in a controlled environment (14). In this study,
`DSCG-chlorpheniramine was statistically significant-
`ly superior to ketotifen in the prevention of itching and
`redness. Efficacy scores of both agents were clinically
`equivalent up to the first 10 minutes of the reaction.
`DSCG-chlorpheniramine appeared to be clinically
`more effective than ketotifen at 15 and 20 minutes af-
`ter challenge. These results indicate that the antihis-
`taminic effect of the two drugs immediately after chal-
`lenge is of equal potency; however, DSCG-chlorpheniramine
`may have a longer duration of action.
`In a previous CAC study, ketotifen was reported to
`be as effective as another topical antihistamine,
`emedastine, for inhibition of itching (15). The antihis-
`taminic compounds chlorpheniramine and ketotifen have
`been proven to have an equal H1-receptor affinity in
`an in vitro receptor binding study (16). The present re-
`sults suggest that the first-generation histamine-re-
`ceptor antagonist chlorpheniramine is highly effective
`in reducing not only ocular itching but also redness in
`the allergic conjunctivitis model. However, it is also
`possible that the effect on redness was a result of mast
`cell stabilization provided by cromolyn. Sodium cro-
`molyn has been proven to interfere with the influx of
`calcium and to inhibit mast cell degranulation and his-
`tamine release (10,17,18). Mast cell stabilizers may al-
`so act through other mechanisms. Cromolyn sodium
`
`132
`
`is known to inhibit chemotaxis, activation, degranu-
`lation, and cytotoxicity of neutrophils, eosinophils, and
`monocytes (19, 20). Similar properties have also been
`shown for ketotifen (13, 21). DSCG-chlorpheniramine
`has been shown to prevent tear histamine release in
`a CAC model, with a 2-week pretreatment before chal-
`lenge (22). Results of the present study suggest some
`effect on mast cell stabilization, even after only one
`drop. In fact, both drugs also reduced the total num-
`ber of inflammatory cells 30 minutes after challenge,
`suggesting an inhibitory effect of other chemotactic
`mediators besides histamine.
`In conclusion, one would expect the dual mast cell
`stabilization and antihistaminic properties of ketotifen
`to be superior in anti-allergic efficacy compared to
`an older combination product such as DSCG with the
`first-generation
`antihistamine
`chlorpheniramine.
`However, this was not the case. In the present mod-
`el, DSCG-chlorpheniramine and ketotifen were both
`effective at preventing the onset of the clinical re-
`sponse, and reducing the cytologic reaction, but DSCG-
`chlorpheniramine was more effective in reducing itch-
`ing and redness.
`
`Reprint requests to:
`Andrea Leonardi, MD
`Department of Ophthalmology
`University of Padova
`Via Giustiniani 2
`35128 Padova, Italy
`andrea.leonardi@unipd.it
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1. Abelson MB, Schaefer K. Conjunctivitis of allergic ori-
`gin: immunologic mechanisms and current approaches
`to therapy. Surv Ophthalmol 1993; 38 (Suppl): S115-32.
`2. Abelson MB, Chambers WA, Smith LM. Conjunctival al-
`lergen challenge. A clinical approach to studying aller-
`gic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1990; 108: 84-8.
`3. Galli SF, Costa JJ. Mast-cell-leukocyte cytokine cascades
`in allergic inflammation. Allergy 1994; 24: 203-6.
`4. Proud D, Sweet J, Stein P, et al. Inflammatory media-
`tor release on conjunctival provocation of allergic sub-
`jects with allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1990; 85:
`896-905.
`
`IPR2018-01020 and IPR2018-01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 6
`
`

`

`Leonardi et al
`
`5. Ciprandi G, Buscaglia S, Pesce GP, Villaggio B, Bag-
`nasco M, Canonica GW. Allergic subjects express in-
`tercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1 or CD54) on
`epithelial cells of conjunctiva after allergen challenge.
`J Allergy Clin Immunol 1993; 91: 783-92.
`6. Leonardi A. Role of histamine in allergic conjunctivitis.
`Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000; 78: 18-21.
`7. Church MK, Holgate ST, Shute JK, Walls AF, Sampson
`AP. Mast cell-derived mediators. In: Middleton E Jr, Reed
`CE, Ellis EF, Adkinson F Jr, Yunginger JW, Busse WW,
`eds. Allergy, principles and practice. St. Louis: Mosby,
`1998: 146-67.
`8. Abelson MB, Wun PJ, Nevius JM. Mast cell stabilizers.
`In: Abelson MB, ed. Allergic diseases of the eye. Philadel-
`phia: Saunders, 2000: 228-34.
`9. Abelson MB, Shaefer K, Wun PJ. Antihistamines and
`antihistamine/vasoconstrictors. In: Abelson MB, ed. Al-
`lergic diseases of the eye. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2000:
`202-10.
`10. Allansmith MR, Ross RN. Ocular allergy and mast cell
`stabilizers. Surv Ophthalmol 1986; 30: 229-44.
`11. Estelle F, Simons R. Antihistamines. In: Middleton E Jr,
`Reed CE, Ellis EF, Adkinson F Jr, Yunginger JW, Busse
`WW, eds. Allergy, principles and practice. St. Louis:
`Mosby, 1998: 612-37.
`12. Cerqueti PM, Ciprandi G. Sperimentazione dell’associ-
`azione disodiocromoglicato-clorfenamina nel trattamento
`della congiuntivite allergica. Boll Ocul 1986; 65: 69-73.
`13. Grant SM, Goa KL, Fitton A, Sorkin EM. Ketotifen: a
`review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic
`properties, and therapeutic use in asthma and allergic
`disorders. Drugs 1990; 40: 412-40.
`
`14. Abelson MB. Comparison of the conjunctival allergen chal-
`lenge model with the environmental model of allergic con-
`junctivitis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999; 77: 38-42.
`15. D’Arienzo PA, Leonardi A, Bensch G. Randomized, dou-
`ble-masked, placebo-controlled comparison of the ef-
`ficacy of emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic so-
`lution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic so-
`lution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge mod-
`el. Clin Ther 2002; 24: 409-16.
`16. Sharif NA, Xu SX, Yanni JM. Emedastine: a potent, high
`affinity histamine H1-receptor-selective antagonist for
`ocular use: receptor binding and second messenger
`studies. J Ocul Pharmacol 1994; 10: 653-64.
`17. Tasaka K, Mio M, Okamoto M. Intracellular calcium re-
`lease induced by histamine releasers and its inhibition
`by some antiallergic drugs. Ann Allergy 1986; 56: 464-9.
`18. Hingorani M, Lightman S. Therapeutic options in ocu-
`lar allergic diseases. Drugs 1995; 50: 208-21.
`19. Bruijnzeel PL, Warringa RAJ, Kok PT, Kreukniet J. In-
`hibition of neutrophil and eosinophils induced chemo-
`taxis by nedocromil sodium and sodium cromoglycate.
`Br J Pharmacol 1990; 99: 798-802.
`20. Kay AB, Walsh GM, Moqbel R, et al. Disodium cromo-
`glycate inhibits activation of human inflammatory cells
`in vitro. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1987; 80: 1-8.
`21. Petrasch S, van Tits LJ, Motulky HJ, Brodde OE, Michel
`MC. Effect of ketotifen on human lymphocytes in vitro
`and in vivo. Arzneimittelforschung 1993; 43: 904-8.
`22. Secchi AG, De Liberato P, Della Dora F, Corbetta C.
`Prevenzione farmacologica della liberazione di istami-
`na lacrimale indotta da stimolazione congiuntivale con
`allergeni specifici. Boll Ocul 1984; 63: 1-7.
`
`on line
`This paper has been selected to appear on the
`EJOWEB page free of charge
`www.eur-j-ophthalmol.com/freearticle/index.htm
`
`133
`
`IPR2018-01020 and IPR2018-01021, Exhibit 1028, Page 7
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket