Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

\(~f.

'ClinicalEvaluation of Karpura
i~(Chinnamomum Camphora (L.)
r ~ ..f

c',

-; ~'..

~,~':;:
Kshira (Milk) Aschyotana in
.Allerqlc Conjunctivitis
.

N. Srikanth
Ex lecturer
~~<;. ' Indian Institute of Ayurvedic
Medicine and Reserch
:i:i:- '
JayaMahal Road. Bangalore-560006
Present Address:
Asst. Research Officer (Ayurveda)
; Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha
No. 61-65 Institutional Area, Opp '0' Block
Janak Puri, New Oelhi-110 058

Iy occuring ocular problem in day-to-day'

tk:tlinical study of 76 cases of


.I(.~o-;'}unctivitiswas conducted to
~;~~;...r.~t~,:nhe
effect of Indigenous Oph!.ti~tmlc:Drugs-Karpura(Chinnamomum
~iibtcr(
L.) and Kshira(Cow
Milk),
, ~~gJ~~I~
administration (Aschyotana) of

;~?l.~~~?j~!Jlonprepared with Karpura


. ?~,{1~;~~naID()mum
camphora (L.) and

R r~;!~~pyvMlk)

was scheduled for 5


J~J;Aschyotana procedure was
in!~i;for the same period at an
\lqf~.days. Fol/ow up observation
; ,; "' -0. or1e'fortwo months. Results were
APCQur.aging
.
.

, fl~t{.>.~,:.....

~:~Dtr~ctuction'
r

:~~~~_~

. :~;~;:i.r~;;
~~Iergicconjuntivrtrs

:s common-

ophthalmic

practice.

phlyctenular

conjunctivitis

Apart

from

as a mani-

festation of endoceeouscatlerqy and


spring catarrh an exogenous aliegry
the conjunctiva may react to many ether
sensitizing factors viz. external plt/slcalor chemical. Allergy as a calise of
conjuctival

congestion

has

however

been exaggerated. Anvthinqwtucn does


not fall into the description of ~ S!jE.:clflc
condition

and

any

condition

aetioiogy is undermined

snow

is often attrib-

uted to allergy. This evasive diaqnosis


is further supported by the fa .crab!e
response of the conjuctyival conce stion
to steriods. (Ohanda et al 19:~!6}

Aetiology:

There are however very specific


factors. which 00. cause well-defined
a'llergic reactionsTn
the conjuctiva.
(Dtiar"da et a!19E)6, Agarwal and Gupta
19:82'
'.
)

bh

ing rriatenal. infestation of a drU~9,rf-'i~


. food or of a medication appficatlo~ ..
'..

Allerqic conditions

junctival smearforeosinophils,

like eye

er eosinophilic

hi9;

count in differenti
,

WBC counts and detection of int


tinal parasites may help diagnos'i

like hay fever

" Parasitic infestation in intestines

"4

suggests an allergic basis. A co

~:,.'{heconjunctival sac, e.q. leafy \jeg-

, ai~'-!asthma

Need
for
Therapies:

Alternativ
.

Current

line of manaceme

'" ..: AII~rgy, to edibles,like .eggs, mil~""


.
'.'
''''''1..,
".' :f(sh~'rr1'eats,certain fruhs':and veq- .' advocates the. use of topical'st~ri9
decongestant drops along with antE
etables.
tarnine agents, is not found satis(a~
*
Drug allergy to local applications
and temporary, should be ropeateq
commonly to chemotherapeutic
drugs like sulpha and antibiotics
like penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline and neomycin has been
known
Allergy to mediations

like aninjec-

tion of xylocaine is well known.


*

tures have recorded more than. 5~'


drugs, 30 metals, minerals ahd
products useful in the treatrnent ,
ious eye disordrs (SrikanthN.200'

~'-r

plastic made contact lenses, prosthetic implants and the plastic of'

carnphora

spectacle frames.
*

during exacerbations, besides


verse effects. Which coulc eff,e~Jj
tackle such conditions. AyurvediG,(

the study, attempt has been ,m,a, _


evaluate the effect of IndigenoLJ,
thalrnic Drugs-Karpura (Chinnan,j

Allergy to chemical substances like

(L)

and Kshira (CO~


,

Drug Profile:

Allergy due to septic focus elsewhere particularly

staphylococcal

infection and tubercular focus

congestion. History of sudden


set following use of some sensAI'

* " Allergic reaction to foregin matter in

. etaticns, ants. cosmetics


shadows etc.

Thediagnosisofallergicconlucti~itr~~'"
shouid be .made o,nly after excl~~'"
i'ng' specific causes of conjuctTv"

.1~jT

1. Name of the Drug: Chf'!.g,


camphora (L.)
..

It>

PharmacOlogical

Profile:

Rasa- Tikta katu, madhura


Guna-Laghu, tikshna
Vipaka-Katu
, Virya-Sita
Ophthalmic
Uses
and
Indications : chakushaya (conducive
to vision and eye.(.Netra Sukrhara
(effective
in corneal opar.me s ,

IAser-lyotai,.):, ct tresr ,~cl',,1i(Jr'rk;: ~r::?l


with Kerpura rChinnL.:inCniLI,',1
;:::,;1'. ";cr,']
(L ) a'lC Kshira (COIN n11!k) ,f :I~,~ i:.. ~S,,cS
of a:lcrglc conjunctr-it s ~,'1 c,;;,.- ::':S
has been made to or ser.c ;1,': ;,':
dence of age sex O':Cl,C::t'(J,'
:::. ":,.[,t,
and rcie of aetioloqrcal loc.(;"'_, " :<C'.~
uon to the causation of :~-,,:(.:.'1'~' '"

Selection
Fresh

(SrikanthN ,2000),ChinnamornLlm
camphora

(L,) shows antibacterial

activity against
gram-negative

gram-positive

and

bacteria, (Naqv: BS

et al)

Pharmacological

Cow Milk
Profile:

Vipaka-Madhura
Vlrya-Sita

Opthalmic

Uses and Indications:

chakushaya (conducive to vision and


eye) (SrikanthN

2000)

Material & Method:


76 Clinically established
of acute/chronic
were selected

ca::i,':',

allergic conjunct.'.

'i!:;

(COW Milf:!

,:.','i!j-,

(;3\i1!:;'.:,:,J I L
Vv8'S

for

(::::'0:1

of Preparation

Procedure

of Aschyotana

installation
of 10-1;~ jrops of
solution into C!,:ll; 1<::11"'; a I sac
vJhell eye is completely 01"'(''1 and pata::lI! IS in supine p~;s'I:!~:ill
medicated

of Administration:

All patle",!,> :,v:c,:.tl:,! fur tne study


\\Ert: treated 'Nit!!; sci',y:._,,:,:'a for

5 (1, rvs

tI-:2 p,';;, c,i: J<.. ~cr ttl~ s arne


period at an interval '-if ,/;': \',t;E:k

establishing clinical and therapeuic


topical

r'reiJ::;' ,

ano r,::oeated

The present study was airneo ..:


of

and Kslura
. topica: use

Schedule

Aims & Objectives:

ficacy

solution

(ChinnamOnll!ln

Fresh solution should be prepared by adding 1/2 g01, Karpur a


(Ctunnamomum camphora (L ) 10100011 of boiled and cooled Kshlra (COW
Milk)

Rasa-Madhura
Guna-Sniqdria

Karpura

Method

2. Name of the Drug:

of the Drug:

(:;-

adrrunis trau.'-

rb

Criteria for selection:


Patients

peSEI1:!:

i(J

,,'Jlth C:Jrdlllal

features c f elierql( (,onju1i( (;it's viz

"---',---,,~""""""'~"""""'

.. _-u (

Observations:

lacrimationrrrita-

RE;cinE-"ss.,j'~~;'1g
1,01', dnd

3~

~~i~
:i~')l;hobla

Cnron.cttv

;.::SS

Total

than 5 years.

Criteria for exclusion:

76 cases

and the age group

15-24 yrs and 58-64 .


Observation

Giant

conjunctivitis

Papl!ta''j

conjunctivitis

the 23 (30 2%) cases were

males

53 (69 7%) were

and

numbers

Parasitic

A"erg~c skin diseases

anywhere

III

the bccy.

of 43 (56.6%)
Prakriti.

signs

toms ana tl~elr aueviatron


Routine

and symp-

(Model

Hematological

C: .-anunatrons

was

were

score

and

SIC.-

done

be-

fore treatment

worker

s/studeuts.

under

diet

cases

pattern.

were

features

Score

(29%) were

54 .(71%)

vegetarians

preSE'-!H:::O Absent

20. Absent

C'

of the
and 22

(Table-a)

As

of the Illness. a max-

of 27 (35 5~;-;) where 0-6

months

old and 18 (23 T:::.) were 7-12

months

old. ,Table-51

.rz. Itching
present

redness
/II aii the

lacrimationrn

71

Clinical

features

and Irritation

(93~j:)

old. (Ta-

viz Itching red-

observec

") lacrimation

1'1

in 21 (27';,:

III all tll~

II)

71 (93':1/0)

17 (23 -/~)and Blepnantls

cases

Rlst:

.n ESR was

rn 14 .:S 4',': __
-,ses

G : The aeuoioq.c.s
to troo.ca.

were

(1 OO~~)
photophoura In

76 cases

17 (23 7':-,) were 7-12 months

photophobra

Dresent

Further

. ness and nruat.on were present

F" e sent 30. Absent

,L;)i'~

A maximum

non-vegetarians

76 cases (1 OC

I; .

were of

(Table-S)

ble-5) Cnnica: features

Model score sheet


Ctinical

cases

(Table-Z).

imum number

Tre) criterion for assessment

chemical

15-24 yrs and 25-34 yrs

(Table-f ). A maximum

per the chronicity

Criteria for assessment:

sr.een

between

respectively.
Kacha

more than 5 years

o.ised on presenting

wet

cases

number of 42 (553C';/o) cases were field

infestation

Chronicity

feamals

of 23 (:302%)

the age group


number

Johnson Syndrome

Stevens

in table-

1 .ndicates

and 26 (34.2%)
xerato

sexes

yrs were studied.

The maximum
AICPIC

of both

'..,;-::;.

',,(7:)

'..~:;

S ..:.

:v..

;::3ble

~/'.;,::;s~;rt;
~:~

.1.12

_.)Ca:O.'=:-5 :'::r ...; ,- ~'in.rruants m


3-:- 48 6)~) t-.,(O~h:l' ;~ - ,tr'J8rlS In33

(158'

\+

JOff5m4fC1rt

\3:rrrR7

~0

0 ~ '\

\.

57

A:
I

(43.4%),Use of Cosmetics In16 (21 %),

symptomswasobserved
cases. (Table-9,,).

contactwith pets in 3 (3.9%) and No


specific cause was identified in 17
(22.4%)cases (Table-7).

Discussion of Conclusion:
the observaBy considering
tions and results, it may be concluded
that the colution prepares with Karpura
(Chinnamomum
camphora (L.) and
Kshira (Cow Milk) may be successfully
employed in the management of acute
and chronic conjunctivitis
of varied
aetiology. The response obtained may
be explained with chakushaya, Netrya
(conducive to vision and eye) properties
(SrikanthN.2000) and antibacterial activity against gram-positive and gramnegaUve bacteria (may be effective in
preventing secondary infection) (Naqvi

Results:
Complete relief from presenting
symptomsviz. itching was noticed in 64

.~

(84%)(n=76)cases redness in 66 (86%)


(n=76), lacrimation in 64 (90%) (n-71)
" whilecomplete relief and photophobia
wasobserved in 14 (82%) (n=17) subjects.(Table-8).
Irrespective of symptomatic relief,complete relief from all the present-

~Iingsymptom was noticed

in 62 (81.5)

casesand relief from certain presenting


~,

..

i
:
I

!
:

I
i

I
,
I

,'-

Age and Sex Distribution

..r

Agein
Years

Male

-P:34

Total

7.8

17

22

23

302

10

13.5

16

21

26

34.2

5.2

9.2

11

14.4

2.6

6.5

9.2

----

"Ii! 45-54
I '

,!r-

-.

55-64

'r---

Iii ,Total
I""--

1.3

23

30.2

53

~~.

I,

c,

Female

. II) , 35-44

15-24

8S et al.) attributed to the above cruqs.

Table NO.1.

"

in 14 (1842%)

.. -' ...... _

..

--

10.5

69,7

76

,~

..

.'

11.8

100
,
-_. -

---'
\.

,I

<..'"

58

\. 3:rrgifcr

./..{F5/?1d1f1ry

JFTR'f

~t~
";(oo~~~~'
"1 .;~~

Table NO.2

Distributiorr

"

of Prakriti

Prakrti

No. Patients
(n=76)

Vata

11

14.5

Pitta

22

30 1

Kapha

43

56.6

----..; "
j.

!f
. ....- ~
17'
-:--1

I
t
,
'j

:-~.

I!

"

,:

Table NO.3
Distribution

,
.
-

. i

of Occupation

No. Patients

Occup.;~!on

,
c

(n=76)
,

Desk

i,,
i

workers/

Students

,l
;!

1f:)

"

205
,

Fleldl

42

Factroy
workers
,

55.3

House Wife

19

25

Table NO.4
Dietary Habits
Diet

No. Patients
(n-76)

Veg
Non.

- --_.

..

Veg
_.

. _.

0/0

22

29

54

71

_..

19

.. -

-~.-.. -

..

.]~

4I'5m4f(YJ"1

.J~

";(oo:t

-~59F

Table NO.5
i

Chronicity

of illness

No. Patients

Chronicity
Of illness
(MlYr.)

(n=7f')

0-6M

27

35.5

7-12M

18

23.7

1Yr.-1Yr.6M

11

14.5

1Yr. 7M-2Yr.

3.9

2Yr.-2Yr.6M

3 Yr-7M-3Yr.

,
,

r
;

i
:

7.8

I,

2.6
,,:

3 Yr.-3Yr.6M

6.5

3 Yr.7M-4Yr.

5.2

Table No.6
Incidence

of clinical features
i

Clirucal features

No. Patients

%
,

(n=76)

II

Itching

76

100

I
I

Redness

76

100

Irritation

76

100

I
I

.,
L

-....;;;:--- ..

!
;

t.acnmation

71

93

Photophobia

17

22

Blepharitis

21

27

Raise in'ESR

14

18.4

I
,

Raise in AEC

___

M_

_______________

33

43

--------

.
-.---- -----

-.

o.

__

i
I

,
-

- - --

---1 60

JO{i5m4i(itrf

J~

Jf7RD

~oo~

"
!

I'

rr
Distribution

I
Aetiological

I,

Table No.7
of Aetiological

Factors

I'

(n=76)

-\,
I

...
'.

I
I

"

15.8
48.6

12
37
21

Exposure to tropical winds


Occupational irritants
Inflammation of surrounding

No. Patients

Factors'

27

tissues
Use of Irritant Drugs

Exogenous Allergens

33

2.6
43.4

Use of Cosmetics

16

21

Contact with pets


No. specific cause

3.9
22.4

17

,
,
;

' .'

.,

* Dhanda et

et. 1996, Agarwal and Gupta 1982.

,i

Table NO.8
Symptom

wise Response

!
Clinical features

Response
Relief

No. Relief

No.

Patients

after treatment

No.

,
%

Patients

Itching
(n-76)

64

84

12

15.8

Redenss
(n-76)

66

86

10

13.15

Irritation
(n-76)

68

89

10.5

Lacrimation
(n-71 )

64

90

9.8

Photophobia

14

82

17.6

i;
I

:
I
r

(n-17)

,
I
I

- --- _ .. - ..

-.

'"-

...

. _ ..

A .Jngik

J..{t5/?i..,q(1"1

.J~

~OO~

~~~~~~~~~

Table NO.9
I

Response

Response

after

after Treatment
No. Patients

Treatment
(n-76) ,
Complete Relief of all

62

81 5

14

18.42

Presenting Symptoms
Complete Relief from certain
Presenting Symptoms

References:
I

~I
I

Agarwal and Gupta 1982, Clinical Examination of OphthalmicCases,


CBSpublishers, Delhi

Smith R. 1965, Clinical Ophthalmology, Verghese Company, Bombay.

. Anonymous 1996, Pharmacological Investigat.ions


of Certain
MedlcinalPlants and Certain Compound
Formulatin Used in Ayurveda & Sidda
CGRAS,New Delhi.

Srikanth N. 2000. The Actions


and use of Indigenous Ophthalmic
Drugs,
chowkhambha
Sanskrit
Prathisthan, Delhi.

Ahmed E 1993, A Text Book of


Ophthalmolgy, Oxford University Press,
Calcutta.

Srikanth N. 1999 Ancient Ocular


Therapeutics-An Integrated Approach.
Ayur Medline, Vol. I.P: 93-103. Bangalore.

Dhanda et al. 1996, A text Book


ofclinical ophthalmology, Galgotia Publishers,New Delhi
Dutta, L.C. 1994, Modern Ophthalmology, Jaypee Brothers, Medical
Publishers New Delhi.
May, C and Worth, C. 1968
Manualof the Diseases of the Eye, 13th
Bailliere Tindal and Castell, Lon-

I ~~~,
~

Naqvi B.S. 1985, Screening of


Pakistani Plants for anti Bacterial activity. Pakistani J. Ind. Res (2), 28. 24.

Srikanath N. 2001, A study of


Dry Eye Syndrome And it's Management J.R.A.S. Vol. XXII No. 1-2 Jan.June 2001.
Susruta 1979. Susruta Samhita
Uttarasthana, Chowkhambha Sanskrit
series, Varanasi.
Vagbhata
1976,
Astanga
Samgraha, Sutra sthana, Telugu Academy Hyderabad.