Clinical evaluation of twice-daily emedastine 0.05% eye drops (Emadine eye drops) versus levocabastine 0.05% eye drops in patients with allergic conjunctivitis

Safety and Tolerability of Bilastine 0.6% Ophthalmic Solution: An 8-Weeks Phase III Study

Purpose

The objective of this study was to assess the safety and tolerability of preservative-free bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution after 8 weeks of once-daily administration in patients with allergic conjunctivitis (AC).

Patients and Methods

Multi-center, international, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III study of adult patients with seasonal or perennial AC. The study was conducted in 26 centers of 5 European countries. Duration of daily treatment with bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution or placebo was 8 weeks. Safety was evaluated by analyzing incidence of ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); additionally, and as secondary parameters, ocular tolerability was assessed, in addition efficacy was also assessed by the average daily total eye symptoms score (TESS).

Results

A total of 333 randomized patients with AC were included (bilastine, N=218; placebo, N=115). Mean (SD) age of the patients was 39.9 (13.7) and were 63.7% female. Overall, the percentage of ocular related TEAEs was low, and the percentage of patients with ocular related TEAEs was lower in the bilastine ophthalmic solution group (2.8%) than in the placebo group (4.3%). No severe TEAEs were reported. The ocular symptoms and TESS improved during the trial in both treatment groups. Statistically significant treatment differences were observed at Week 8 for the TESS and all individual ocular symptoms, being significantly better in the bilastine ophthalmic solution group than in placebo group.

Conclusion

Bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution revealed no safety concerns in patients with AC after 8 weeks of once-daily administration. Bilastine was effective in reducing ocular symptoms associated with AC in response to both seasonal and perennial allergens.

PAF-induced inflammatory and immuno-allergic ophthalmic diseases and their mitigation with PAF receptor antagonists: Cell and nuclear effects

Ocular allergies are becoming more prevalent as more airborne pollutants, irritants and microbes pervade our environment. Inflammatory and allergic mediators released by dendritic and mast cells within the conjunctiva cause allergic conjunctivitis (AC), a prevalent ocular surface disorder that affects >40% of the world's human population on a seasonal or perennial basis. Even though histamine is a major culprit, platelet-activating factor (PAF) also contributes to AC, acting either directly or synergistically with histamine and other mediators. PAF receptor-meditated inflammatory reactions, via cell-membrane-bound and nuclear-membrane-bound and nuclear PAF receptors, are also implicated in the etiology of other eye diseases such as uveitis, diabetic retinopathy, corneal and choroidal neovascularization, and age-related macular degeneration which cause serious visual impairment and can lead to blindness. This review highlights the various deleterious elements implicated in the pathological aspects of ocular allergic reactions and inflammation and provides concepts and treatment options to mitigate these eye disorders with a special focus on PAF and PAF receptor antagonists.

Immunopharmacology in Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis: Current and Future Perspectives

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a complex and chronic, multifactorial Th2 cell-mediated chronic ocular surface inflammatory condition that typically affects predominantly male children in hot or warm climates. The primary symptom is intense ocular pruritus, often significant enough to affect activities of daily living. Clinical features differ from simple forms of allergic conjunctivitis in that they are more-or-less confined to the superior tarsus and limbus. There is also a risk of corneal involvement, which leads to irreversible vision loss in approximately 6% of patients. Right now, there is no standardized treatment protocol, and many of the currently available options are not effective in severe and recurrent cases. As such, it is imperative to understand this complex allergic immune response in order to identify future therapeutic targets. This review will focus on potential drug targets in VKC, with particular emphasis on immunomodulators and immunobiologic agents.

Ocular redness - II: Progress in development of therapeutics for the management of conjunctival hyperemia

Conjunctival hyperemia is one of the most common causes for visits to primary care physicians, optometrists, ophthalmologists, and emergency rooms. Despite its high incidence, the treatment options for patients with conjunctival hyperemia are restricted to over-the-counter drugs that provide symptomatic relief due to short duration of action, tachyphylaxis and rebound redness. As our understanding of the immunopathological pathways causing conjunctival hyperemia expands, newer therapeutic targets are being discovered. These insights have also contributed to the development of animal models for mimicking the pathogenic changes in microvasculature causing hyperemia. Furthermore, this progress has catalyzed the development of novel therapeutics that provide efficacious, long-term relief from conjunctival hyperemia with minimal adverse effects.

Discovery to Launch of Anti-allergy (Emadine; Patanol/Pataday/Pazeo) and Anti-glaucoma (Travatan; Simbrinza) Ocular Drugs, and Generation of Novel Pharmacological Tools Such as AL-8810

The eye and eyesight are exquistly designed and are precious, and yet we often take them for granted. Good vision is critical for our long-term survival and for humanity's enduring progress. Unfortunately, since ocular diseases do not culminate in life-and-death scenarios, awareness of the plight of millions of people suffering from such eye ailments is not publicized as other diseases. However, losing eyesight or falling victim to visual impairment is a frightening outlook for most people. Glaucoma, a collection of chronic optic neuropathies, of which the most prevalent form, primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), is the second leading cause of irreversible blindness. POAG currently afflicts >70 million people worldwide and is an insidious, progressive, silent thief of sight that is asymptomatic. On the other hand, allergic conjunctivitis (AC), and the associated rhinitis ("hay-fever"), frequently victimizes a huge number of people worldwide, especially during seasonal changes. While not life-threatening, sufferers of AC soon learn the value of drugs to treat their signs and symptoms of AC as they desire rapid relief to overcome the ocular itching/pain, redness, and tearing AC causes. Herein, I will describe the collective efforts of many researchers whose industrious, diligent, and dedicated team work resulted in the discovery, biochemical/pharmacological characterization, development and eventual launch of drugs to treat AC (e.g., olopatadine [Patanol/Pataday/Pazeo] and emedastine [Emedine]), and for treating ocular hypertension and POAG (e.g., travoprost [Travatan ] and Simbrinza). This represents a personal perspective.

Management of corneal complications in vernal keratoconjunctivitis: A review

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral, allergic conjunctivitis with episodes of acute exacerbations. Although VKC has a self-limiting course, chronic recurrent inflammation can cause long-term visual impairment due to corneal complications including shield ulcers, infectious keratitis, keratoconus, corneal opacities, and limbal stem cell deficiency. The initial step in the management of corneal involvement is medical treatment of the acute stage of VKC and prevention of recurrences. Giant papillae not responding to medical treatment can be removed surgically in the case of corneal involvement. Shield ulcer with no inflammatory plaque usually heals with appropriate medical therapy. For shield ulcer with inflammatory plaque, however, surgical debridement with or without amniotic membrane transplantation might be necessary. Keratoconus may develop in chronic and severe VKC. An annual evaluation of these patients with corneal topography and/or tomography is essential for early detection of keratoconus and its timely management that includes collagen cross-linking and intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation. Corneal transplantation may be required in the advanced stage of keratoconus. Both penetrating keratoplasty and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty can result in excellent visual outcomes in keratoconic eyes with concomitant VKC. Appropriate management of inflammation in the perioperative period is crucial for achieving successful outcomes after corneal transplantation. Limbal stem cell deficiency, a rare complication of long-standing and severe VKC, might be treated with living-related conjunctival limbal allograft.

Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for allergic conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergy is the fifth leading group of chronic diseases, affecting as much as 40% of the first-world population. Its pathophysiology has a genetic component, and is driven by the immune system's sensitized response to antigens and environmental factors. As research continues to uncover the mediators responsible for ocular allergy, the development of novel drugs should progress.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review of allergic conjunctivitis, ocular allergy and their treatment was performed using PubMed and Medline. Additional information is also included from clinicaltrials.gov and associated web sites for drugs currently in clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

The initial step of therapy remains identification and avoidance of allergic triggers. The mainstay of treatment is the new generation of dual-acting antihistamines. Drugs that improve the magnitude and duration of relief, with greater subject responder rates, are gradually making their way into the clinic. Allergic conjunctivitis is a relatively easy disease to study because of the availability of models such as the conjunctival allergen challenge. New classes of drugs that target inflammatory pathways or mediators involved in the early and late-phase allergic response are being screened in these models and we are making progress in identifying the next generation of anti-allergic therapy.

Ocular allergy: recognizing and diagnosing hypersensitivity disorders of the ocular surface

Ocular allergy includes several clinically different conditions that can be considered as hypersensitivity disorders of the ocular surface. The classification of these conditions is complex, and their epidemiology has not been adequately studied because of the lack of unequivocal nomenclature. Ocular allergy symptoms are often, but not always, associated with other allergic manifestations, mostly rhinitis. However, specific ocular allergic diseases need to be recognized and managed by a team that includes both an ophthalmologist and an allergist. The diagnosis of ocular allergy is usually based on clinical history and signs and symptoms, with the support of in vivo and in vitro tests when the identification of the specific allergic sensitization is required for patient management. The aims of this Task Force Report are (i) to unify the nomenclature and classification of ocular allergy, by combining the ophthalmology and allergy Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma criteria; (ii) to describe current methods of diagnosis; (iii) to summarize the therapeutic options for the management of ocular allergic inflammation.

Time to onset and duration of action of the antihistamine bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solutions 1.0% and 1.5% in allergic conjunctivitis: a phase III, single-center, prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, conjunctival allergen challenge assessment in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Bepotastine besilate is a highly selective histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist with antihistaminic, mast cell stabilizing, and anti-inflammatory activity. Based on a history of clinical effectiveness and tolerability of oral bepotastine besilate in the treatment of allergic symptoms, bepotastine besilate is being tested as a potential ophthalmic medication for allergic conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0% and 1.5% for the treatment of ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia in a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model in adults and children.

METHODS

This Phase III, single-center, prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, CAC clinical trial enrolled patients >or=10 years of age with a history of allergic conjunctivitis, skin-test reaction, and CAC response. Patients received bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0%, bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%, or placebo, 1 drop on each eye on days 14 +/- 3 and 28 +/- 3. The primary efficacy end points, patient-assessed ocular itching (at 3, 5, and 7 minutes) and investigator-assessed conjunctival hyperemia (at 7, 15, and 20 minutes), were determined after CAC according to standardized 5-point scales (0 = none to 4 = severe). Clinical significance was defined in the protocol as >or=1.0-U between-group difference in mean ocular itching scores at the majority of time points at a study visit and also a >or=0.5-U difference at all time points. Tolerability of the test agent was assessed by visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure, dilated funduscopy, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients (male, 54%; age range, 11-73 years; white race/ethnicity, 93%) received investigational product and comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0%, 36 patients; bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%, 35; and placebo, 36). All 107 patients received investigational product at visit 3A (day 0) and were included in the ITT population. Of the 107 patients who were enrolled, 103 completed the study without a protocol deviation or violation. The 1.0% and 1.5% solutions were associated with clinically and statistically significant reductions in mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo on the 15-minute onset-of-action and 8-hour duration-of-action CAC tests (reductions, 1.3-1.5 U and 1.0-1.7 U respectively; all, P < 0.001). Statistically significant reductions in conjunctival hyperemia were achieved with both bepotastine besilate concentrations. Overall, 13 patients experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event considered related to the study drug (bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.0%, 6 patients; bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%, 4; and placebo, 3).

CONCLUSIONS

In this CAC model of allergic conjunctivitis in adults and children, bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solutions 1.0% and 1.5% were associated with clinically and statistically significant reductions in ocular itching, but not conjunctival hyperemia, within 15 minutes that were maintained for at least 8 hours after administration. Both solutions were well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00424398.

Emedastine difumarate: a review of its potential ameliorating effect for tissue remodeling in allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Emedastine difumarate, a selective histamine-H1 receptor antagonist and effective antiallergic agent, inhibits various clinical symptoms of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, urticaria, allergic dermatitis, pruritus cutaneous, and prurigo. In addition to greater efficacy than other antihistamines, emedastine difumarate produces no adverse cardiovascular effects and exhibits minimal anticholinergic activity. Moreover, a recent study revealed that the effect of emedastine difumarate on inhibition of histamine-induced collagen synthesis in vitro was greater in dermal fibroblasts than in nasal mucosa fibroblasts. This result indicates that there are tissue-specific effects of emedastine difumarate and that it may be more effective for treating fibrosis in skin than in nasal mucosa. However, the mechanism and role of tissue remodeling is less well established for allergic skin diseases and allergic conjunctivitis, in comparison to respiratory allergic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This review outlines the involvement of histamine in the pathogenesis of tissue remodeling in a variety of organs, and presents the evidence for the effect of antihistamines on this process. Furthermore, this review also discusses antihistamines as an intervention strategy in tissue remodeling.

METHODS

The scientific literature, published abstracts, and selected textbooks were reviewed.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Although additional evidence is required, emerging evidence suggests that emedastine difumarate may be of value in the prevention of excess tissue remodeling in allergic skin inflammation.

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

PURPOSE

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).

METHODS

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 weeks. One eye of each patient was treated with the study drug and the other was treated with a placebo. Signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis (itching, redness, tearing, chemosis and eyelid swelling) were scored on a 4-point scale. Each symptom was assessed at baseline and then again after 1 and 2 weeks of treatment. Ocular surface variables were assessed by conjunctival impression cytology.

RESULTS

At weeks 1 and 2, all antiallergic agents were significantly more effective than placebo in alleviating itching, redness, tearing, chemosis and eyelid swelling. Fluorometholone acetate was significantly less effective than the other agents in reducing itching and redness at all control visits. Ocular surface findings by impression cytology improved significantly after all treatments compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SAC, olopatadine, ketotifen, epinastine and emedastine are more efficacious than fluorometholone acetate in preventing itching and redness. All the antiallergic agents gave similar results in terms of reducing tearing, chemosis and eyelid swelling. Our data showed that impression cytology parameters improved after treatment with antiallergic agents in patients with SAC.

The early efficacy of topical levocabastine in patients with allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

We investigated the early efficacy of topical levocabastine, an H(1) histamine-receptor antagonist, in improving the clinical symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients with allergic conjunctivitis were enrolled. One drop of levocabastine was instilled in one eye and one drop of artificial tears in the contralateral eye. Clinical examinations were performed before, and 15 and 30 minutes after instillation. Symptoms of itching and signs of injection were assessed at each time point.

RESULTS

Both levocabastine and artificial tears resulted in a statistically significant reduction in ocular itching. However, levocabastine was significantly more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Although artificial tears had a positive effect in reducing symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, by the washing out of allergens, levocabastine was more effective than artificial tears in controlling acute symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, demonstrating that the selective H1 histamine-receptor antagonist action of levocabastine is rapidly effective in a clinical setting.

Efficacy and tolerability of newer antihistamines in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

Treatment for allergic conjunctivitis has markedly expanded in recent years, providing opportunities for more focused therapy, but often leaving both physicians and patients confused over the variety of options. As monotherapy, oral antihistamines are an excellent choice when attempting to control multiple early-phase, and some late-phase, allergic symptoms in the eyes, nose and pharynx. Unfortunately, despite their efficacy in relief of allergic symptoms, systemic antihistamines may result in unwanted adverse effects, such as drowsiness and dry mouth. Newer second-generation antihistamines (cetirizine, fexofenadine, loratadine and desloratadine) are preferred over older first-generation antihistamines in order to avoid the sedative and anticholinergic effects that are associated with first-generation agents. When the allergic symptom or complaint, such as ocular pruritus, is isolated, focused therapy with topical (ophthalmic) antihistamines is often efficacious and clearly superior to systemic antihistamines, either as monotherapy or in conjunction with an oral or intranasal agent. Topical antihistaminic agents not only provide faster and superior relief than systemic antihistamines, but they may also possess a longer duration of action than other classes including vasoconstrictors, pure mast cell stabilisers, NSAIDs and corticosteroids. Many antihistamines have anti-inflammatory properties as well. Some of this anti-inflammatory effect seen with 'pure' antihistamines (levocabastine and emedastine) may be directly attributed to the blocking of the histamine receptor that has been shown to downregulate intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression and, in turn, limit chemotaxis of inflammatory cells. Some topical multiple-action histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine and epinastine) have been shown to prevent activation of neutrophils, eosinophils and macrophages, or inhibit release of leukotrienes, platelet-activating factors and other inflammatory mediators. Topical vasoconstrictor agents provide rapid relief, especially for redness; however, the relief is often short-lived, and overuse of vasoconstrictors may lead to rebound hyperaemia and irritation. Another class of topical agents, mast cell stabilisers (sodium cromoglicate [cromolyn sodium], nedocromil and lodoxamide), may be considered; however, they generally have a much slower onset of action. The efficacy of mast cell stabilisers may be attributed to anti-inflammatory properties in addition to mast cell stabilisation. In the class of topical NSAIDs, ketorolac has been promoted for ocular itching but has been found to be inferior for relief of allergic conjunctivitis when compared with olopatadine and emedastine. Lastly, topical corticosteroids may be considered for severe seasonal ocular allergy symptoms, although long-term use should be avoided because of risks of ocular adverse effects, including glaucoma and cataract formation.

Is ophthalmology evidence based? A clinical audit of the emergency unit of a regional eye hospital

AIM

To evaluate the proportion of interventions that are evidence based in the acute care unit of a regional eye hospital.

METHODS

A prospective clinical audit was carried out at Hong Kong Eye Hospital in July 2002 to investigate the extent to which ophthalmic practices were evidence based. The major diagnosis and intervention provided were identified through chart review. A corresponding literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Library was performed to assess the degree to which each intervention was based on current, best evidence. Each diagnosis intervention pair was accordingly analysed and graded. The level of best, current evidence supporting each intervention was graded and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 274 consecutive consultation episodes were examined. 22 cases were excluded since no diagnosis or intervention was made during the consultation. 108 (42.9%) patient interventions were found to be based on evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomised controlled trials (RCT). Evidence from prospective or retrospective observational studies supported the interventions in 86 (34.1%) patients. In 58 (23.0%) cases, no evidence or opposing evidence was found regarding the intervention. The proportion of evidence based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for surgical interventions compared with non-surgical interventions (p=0.007). The proportion of interventions based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for specialist ophthalmologists than trainee ophthalmologists (p=0.021).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the majority of interventions in the ophthalmic unit were evidence based and comparable to the experience of other specialties.

Onset and Duration of Action of Ketotifen???0.025%???and???Emedastine???0.05% in Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE

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 conjunctivitis (SAC) induced by allergen exposure, using the Vienna Challenge Chamber model.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a double-masked, randomised, comparative, crossover study conducted at an allergy outpatient clinic in Austria.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Subjects with an allergy to grass pollen were exposed to the allergen in a pollen chamber for 4 hours, followed by a 3-hour break and then a second exposure for 3 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

Study participants were 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.

OUTCOMES

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 hours after dosing. Onset of action was defined as the time to the first observation of a 20% reduction from baseline in the composite ocular symptom score.

RESULTS

All 37 subjects enrolled completed the study. The median time to onset of action was 15 minutes for ketotifen and 30 minutes for emedastine. This difference was significant using the generalised linear model (p = 0.048), but not for the log-rank test analysis. In the initial 2 hours post dose, ketotifen provided significantly greater relief of both composite ocular symptoms (p = 0.026) and total symptom complex (p = 0.014). Both medications were effective in reducing symptoms 5 to 8 hours after dosing. No adverse events were reported for either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Vienna Challenge Chamber model, ketotifen and emedastine both effectively alleviated ocular symptoms of SAC after single-dose administration. Ketotifen had a faster onset of action and provided better symptom relief than emedastine during the first 2 hours after dosing. The rapid onset of action and symptom control make ketotifen a valuable treatment for SAC.

Multiple Cedar Pollen Challenge Diminishes Involvement of Histamine in Allergic Conjunctivitis of Guinea Pigs

It has been reported that antihistamines do not fully modify symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis in clinical settings, suggesting that histamine is not the only contributor to symptom generation in the disease. However, in the majority of experimental allergic conjunctivitis models, antihistamines are very effective in the reduction of symptoms. In the present study, we used our recently developed guinea pig model of allergic conjunctivitis and evaluated whether involvement of histamine in the induction of symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis is altered by multiple antigen challenges. Guinea pigs were sensitized by intraperitoneal injection of Japanese cedar pollen extracts adsorbed on aluminum hydroxide gel, and then challenged by dropping a pollen suspension without the adjuvant on each eye once a week until the 15th challenge. The magnitude of the conjunctivitis intensity score (CIS), itch-associated scratching response and albumin leakage were found to increase with repeated challenges. At the 1st-3rd challenges, histamine H(1) receptor antagonist, mepyramine (10 mg/kg, p.o.), strongly reduced all these symptoms. However, symptoms at the 5th-15th challenges were not inhibited by mepyramine. On the other hand, a nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitor, N(omega)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (10 mg/kg, i.v.), potently inhibited the increase of CIS and albumin leakage at the 15th challenge. In conclusion, histamine involvement in the induction of conjunctivitis symptoms in our model was diminished by multiple antigen challenges. The allergic conjunctivitis at the chronic stage is partly mediated by nitric oxide (NO) derived from NOSs that may be activated by mediators other than histamine. The histamine-independent allergic conjunctivitis may be useful for analyzing mechanisms underlying chronic conjunctivitis.

Ocular allergy guidelines: a practical treatment algorithm

The treatment of ocular allergy requires a better understanding of the spectrum of clinical disorders involving various components of the immune system, and of interactions at the conjunctival surface. The immune response focuses primarily on the different levels of activity of Th2 lymphocytes and various other immune cells associated with allergic disorders, including mast cells, eosinophils, fibroblasts, and epithelial and endothelial cells. Ocular allergic disorders include seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC), vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC), giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC) and atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), which, through immunopathological and molecular immunological techniques, can all be better appreciated as being part of a larger spectrum of an atopic disease state. In SAC, pathological changes, such as increased mast-cell activation, the presence of migratory inflammatory cells, and early signs of cellular activation at the molecular level, are minimal. In PAC, these changes are more pronounced in line with the increased duration of allergenic stimulation. In more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis, such as VKC in children and AKC in adults, the following changes are evident: a persistent state of mast cell, eosinophil and lymphocyte activation; noted switching from connective-tissue to mucosal-type mast cells; increased involvement of corneal pathology; and follicular development and fibrosis. The treatment of acute and more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis has focused in the past on symptomatic relief of symptoms, but with a better understanding of the mechanisms involved we can now provide interventional therapeutic strategies and symptomatic relief. Our advances in the basic understanding of these conditions are providing the foundation for guidelines that improve the ocular health of patients with ocular allergies.