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 rhinitis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emedastine patch was developed in Japan as the first transdermal drug delivery system of emedastine difumarate for allergic rhinitis.
METHODS: 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 (sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal congestion) in Week 2. Levocetirizine was a reference drug and not a comparator in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 1276 patients were randomized to receive the 4 mg emedastine patch (n = 384), 8 mg emedastine patch (n = 382), placebo (n = 384), or levocetirizine (n = 126). The least squares mean (LSM) of the change from baseline of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) in Week 2 was significantly larger in both emedastine patch groups than in the placebo group (adjusted p < 0.0001). In secondary analysis, LSM of the change in the TNSS was -1.20, -1.49, -0.44, and -1.32 in the 4 mg emedastine patch, 8 mg patch, placebo, and levocetirizine, respectively. Reductions in the number of episodes and scores of individual nasal symptoms were all significantly larger throughout the day in the emedastine patch groups than the placebo group (all p < 0.05). No clinically significant safety problems…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,276 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.