Comparison of the efficacy of combined fluticasone propionate and olopatadine versus combined fluticasone propionate and fexofenadine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis induced by conjunctival allergen challenge

Intranasal antihistamine is superior to oral H1 antihistamine as an add-on therapy to intranasal corticosteroid for treating allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Currently, a combination of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) plus oral H₁ antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal H₁ antihistamine (INAH) therapy is frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The superiority of the 2 combined treatments needs to be further examined.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the better of the 2 therapeutic strategies for treating AR.

METHODS

A literature review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, meta-analyses of the total nasal symptom scores and individual nasal symptom scores were pooled based on studies that compared concomitant H₁ antihistamines plus INCS with INCS alone in the treatment of AR. The pooled results were expressed as weighted mean differences between the treatments. For each selected study, we calculated the relative clinical impact based on the total nasal symptom scores as follows: 100 × (Score_Monotherapy - Score_{Combined therapy}) / Score_Monotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 13 publications met our selection criteria, with 5066 patients. The pooled results revealed no significant weighted mean difference on the total nasal symptom scores between concomitant OAH plus INCS and INCS alone. As for the individual symptoms, the most common symptom that revealed remission was rhinorrhea, which was after OAH in combination with INCS. The combination therapy of INAH and INCS was superior to INCS alone. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean relative clinical impact of INAH plus INCS was significantly higher than that of OAH plus INCS.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal H₁ antihistamines have an add-on effect on intranasal corticosteroids, and the combination of intranasal H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid is superior to that of oral H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid in improving nasal symptoms for patients with AR.

Phase III trials examining the efficacy of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared to vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model

Purpose

The purpose of these Phase III studies was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared with vehicle in the treatment of allergen-induced conjunctivitis using the Ora conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC)^® model.

Methods

The single-center (Study 1) and multi-center (Study 2), double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled, parallel group, CAC studies were conducted over ~5 weeks and four study visits. The study design only differed in entry criteria: Study 2 required more severe allergic conjunctivitis symptoms. Subjects were screened for an allergen response at Visits 1 and 2 and then randomized at Visit 3. Approximately 100 subjects were randomized in each study. The primary efficacy endpoints were ocular itching and conjunctival redness 15 minutes and 8 hours post-treatment, post-CAC.

Results

Cetirizine treatment administered 15 minutes or 8 hours prior to CAC resulted in significantly lower ocular itching at all time points post-CAC (P<0.0001) compared to vehicle in both studies. Conjunctival redness measured by the investigator was significantly lower after cetirizine treatment compared to vehicle at 7 minutes post-CAC at both 15 minutes and 8 hours post-treatment in both studies (P<0.05). All secondary endpoints were in favor and confirmatory of cetirizine efficacy with significant improvement in chemosis, eyelid swelling, tearing, ciliary redness, and episcleral redness, as well as nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, nasal pruritus, ear or palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) post-CAC. The most robust treatment differences were observed in Study 2 where more severe symptoms were required for study entry (P<0.05). No safety concerns for cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% were identified.

Conclusion

Cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% was shown to be efficacious in the treatment of ocular and nasal signs and symptoms associated with allergic conjunctivitis and demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Clinical efficacy was demonstrated with a 15-minute onset of action and añ8-hour duration of action.

Ocular itch associated with allergic conjunctivitis: latest evidence and clinical management

Allergic conjunctivitis is one of the most common allergic conditions worldwide. Its incidence is increasing due to changing climate, pollution, increased pollen loads, and the subject's heightened immunological sensitivity in response to these environmental changes. The pathophysiology predominantly involves immunoglobulin E-related mast-cell activation, with release of histamine and other mediators contributing to the propagation of the response by calling in other immune cells and further inflammation. This article presents the evolution of ocular allergy treatments, from vasoconstrictors, to antihistamines and mast-cell stabilizers, to the dual-acting agents, as well as corticosteroid and immunomodulatory options. Future targets for allergy treatment are also discussed.

Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution for the relief of nonocular symptoms provoked by conjunctival allergen challenge

BACKGROUND

Bepotastine besilate is a selective histamine1-receptor antagonist and mast cell stabilizer with inhibitory effects on eosinophilic activity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1.5% bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution in alleviating nonocular symptoms induced by a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC), a clinical model of allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

This was a single-center, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial performed from March 1 to April 4, 2007. Patients 10 years or older with a history of allergic conjunctivitis and a reproducible, positive, clinical response to a CAC were eligible. Patients received either placebo or 1.5% bepotastine besilate, 1 drop in each eye. After 15 minutes, 8 hours, or 16 hours after dosing, a CAC was performed and patients evaluated nonocular symptoms using standardized grading scales.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were enrolled in the study, and 66 comprised the per protocol population. A clinically meaningful reduction (> or = 1.0 unit) compared to placebo was achieved for rhinorrhea and nasal congestion at most time points after 1.5% bepotastine besilate instillation at 8 hours before a CAC test. Significant reductions (P < or = .05) in mean values were seen with 1.5% bepotastine besilate at 15 minutes and 8 hours after dosing for CAC-induced nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, ear or palate pruritus, nasal pruritus, and summed nonocular composite symptom (NOCS) scores and also at 16 hours after dosing for nasal congestion and rhinorrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1.5% bepotastine besilate formulation produced statistically significant reductions after a CAC in individual nonocular symptoms and NOCS scores at onset of allergic response and for at least 8 hours after instillation, with the greatest reduction seen for nasal congestion and rhinorrhea.

Olopatadine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray (Patanase Nasal Spray, Alcon Laboratories, TX, USA) was approved by the US FDA in 2008, and is indicated for the relief of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), also referred to as allergic rhinosinusitis. Olopatadine is an antihistamine with selective H1-receptor antagonist activity. Clinical trials of olopatadine nasal spray have demonstrated safety and efficacy in the treatment of SAR patients. With an onset of action of 30 min, olopatadine nasal spray has also been shown to improve quality of life, ability to perform work and the conduct of usual activities in SAR patients.

Evolving paradigm in the management of allergic rhinitis-associated ocular symptoms: role of intranasal corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Along with nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms such as itching, tearing, and redness are common, bothersome components of the allergic rhinitis (AR) profile. Treatment of the patient with ocular allergy symptoms should take into account a variety of factors, including severity of symptoms, convenience/compliance issues, and patient preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To review from the primary care perspective the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of ocular symptoms associated with AR, and to evaluate the emerging role of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs).

FINDINGS

A search of the PubMed database identified clinical trials that assessed efficacy of agents in reducing ocular allergy symptoms. Internet searches identified further information including data on over-the-counter agents for treatment of ocular symptoms. Searches were conducted using search terms such as pathophysiology, epidemiology, ocular allergy, quality of life, drug class, and drug names. Primary care physicians are often the first point of contact for patients with seasonal AR (SAR) or perennial AR (PAR) symptoms. Ocular allergy associated with SAR and PAR (seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis, respectively) is characterized by both early- and late-phase reactions, with symptoms often persisting long after allergen exposure. Non-pharmacologic measures such as allergen avoidance, use of artificial tears, and cool compresses are pertinent for all ocular allergy sufferers, but may not afford adequate symptom control. Pharmacotherapy options have traditionally included topical ophthalmic products for cases of isolated ocular symptoms, and oral antihistamines for patients with both nasal and ocular symptoms. However, this paradigm is changing with new evidence regarding the efficacy of INSs in reducing ocular symptoms. A number of meta-analyses and individual studies, most of which studied ocular symptoms as secondary variables, have demonstrated the ocular effects of INSs versus topical and oral antihistamines. Additional prospective studies on this topic are encouraged to provide further evidence for these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of their well-established efficacy in reducing nasal allergy symptoms, INSs offer a comprehensive treatment option in patients with nasal and ocular symptoms. Oral antihistamines and/or topical eye drops may also be necessary depending on symptom control.

Allergic rhinitis: the impact of discordant perspectives of patient and physician on treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

A wealth of literature is available that documents the effects of inadequately controlled allergic rhinitis (AR) on patients' daily activities, including impaired sleep, reduced cognitive functioning, and interference with sport and leisure activities. However, despite its high prevalence and significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and productivity, AR may be undertreated. This might arise, in part, from the low priority given to the disease by physicians.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to assess the existence of disparities between the attitudes of patients and physicians to AR, and to comment on the impact these disparities may have on treatment choices.

METHODS

A search was conducted of MEDLINE (1990-2006) and data presented at recent congresses (The 25th Congress of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, June 10-14, 2006, Vienna, Austria, and the 62nd Annual American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Meeting, March 3-7, 2006, Miami Beach, Florida) for articles that contained combinations of the terms allergic rhinitis, patient, physician, perspective, attitude, opinion, experience, or burden. Appropriate articles were selected for review in combination with data from a recent Adelphi Group Products (New York, New York) survey.

RESULTS

A study of the impact of seasonal AR on HRQOL found that adolescent patients (n = 83) scored practical problems higher in terms of importance. AR was found to affect the home and social life of > or =33% of patients in a study from the United Kingdom. A European survey of 1494 patients with AR found that nasal congestion was the most common moderate or severe nasal symptom (55%) and that 44% of patients suffered moderate or severe ocular symptoms. A Danish study of adults and adolescents found that AR was undiagnosed in 32% of patients. In a study of 100 physicians in the United States, approximately 30% of physicians under-estimated the severity of AR and its impact on patients' work or school activities. Furthermore, 1 study indicated that approximately 99% of physicians did not issue adequate treatment, although no study was found that directly linked physicians' perspectives of AR and their treatment decisions to date.

CONCLUSIONS

In a review of the existing literature, evidence of disparities between patients' and physicians' perspectives of AR were found, although no studies linked perspectives to prescribing behavior; therefore, research into the impact on treatment decisions might be warranted. In the future, the patient-physician dialogue might be improved by a standardized questionnaire designed to identify the most bothersome symptoms of a patient's disease, so that the most appropriate treatments can be selected to maximize quality of life.

Les tests de provocation conjonctivaux

The conjunctival provocation test (CPT) is a human model of ocular allergy that has been used to study the ocular response to allergenic stimuli and to evaluate antiallergic therapy. Considerable useful information has been gained on the ocular allergic response and drug efficacy using the conjunctival provocation test and naturally occurring seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. The safety and the efficacy of these CPTs has resulted in many authors using this tool in the etiologic diagnosis of allergic conjunctivitis. This article summarizes the possibilities of these CPTs as a tool for the study, evaluation, diagnosis, and therapeutic follow-up of allergic conjunctivitis.

Ocular allergy in pediatric practice

Allergies occur frequently in all pediatric age groups, affecting up to 40% of children. Allergic conjunctivitis is the most common ocular allergy syndrome among children, with atopic keratoconjunctivitis and vernal keratoconjunctivitis comprising less common, but potentially more severe, forms of ocular allergy. In this article, we review the impact, diagnosis, potential complications, and treatment of these ocular allergic pediatric conditions. Early detection is necessary to prevent potentially serious consequences of pediatric ocular allergy. Involvement of pediatric ophthalmologists may be necessary to avoid preventable vision loss in severe cases.

Effects of adjuvant therapy with 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution on quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis using systemic or nasal therapy

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis patients are often treated with nasal or systemic allergy therapy, forgoing therapy for ocular symptoms. This treatment regimen leaves important aspects of the allergic reaction untreated and affects quality of life (QoL). The Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Allergic Conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire quantify separate aspects of QoL.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the benefit gained in QoL, measured by these questionnaires, when antiallergy eyedrops (olopatadine) were added to patients' preexisting regimens of nasal or systemic allergic rhinitis treatment.

METHODS

This was a 4-week prospective, multicenter, open-label, crossover, environmental QoL study. Visit 1 randomized patients to treatment group A or B and included baseline examinations and questionnaires. Group A instilled olopatadine twice daily and concomitantly with previously prescribed nasal or systemic antiallergy medication for 2 weeks. Group B received no ocular therapy and used only previously prescribed antiallergy medication for 2 weeks. Treatment group crossover occurred at visit 2. Patients again completed the questionnaires at visits 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients completed the study, 97 in group A and 103 in group B. Groups A and B experienced ocular allergic symptoms for 3.88 and 3.96 days, respectively, during the week before baseline. At visits 2 and 3, questionnaire scores were significantly improved for each group when olopatadine was added compared with the nontreatment periods. By visit 2, olopatadine improved QoL by 49% compared with 5% in the nontreated group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, 90.5% of patients with allergic rhinitis treated nasally or systemically also had ocular allergic symptoms. Adding olopatadine to these patients' medication regimens significantly improved ocular allergic symptoms and overall QoL.

A comparison of the clinical efficacy of pheniramine maleate/naphazoline hydrochloride ophthalmic solution and olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model

BACKGROUND

The signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis include ocular redness and itching. Two treatment options currently indicated for acute ocular allergic reaction are pheniramine maleate 0.3%/naphazoline hydrochloride 0.025% ophthalmic solution, an over-the-counter antihistamine/vasoconstrictor combination; and olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution, a prescription antihistamine/mast cell stabilizer.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to compare, at onset of action, the relative effectiveness of pheniramine/naphazoline and olopatadine, when administered before conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC), using the ocular allergy index (OAI) as the primary end point.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralateral, active- and placebo-controlled, single-center study of the CAC model. The first 2 study visits established and confirmed the subjects' ocular allergic reaction (no medication administered). At visit 3, the subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 contralateral (right eye vs left eye) treatment combinations: pheniramine/naphazoline + olopatadine, pheniramine/naphazoline + placebo, or olopatadine + placebo. Medication was given 10 minutes before CAC. The subjects' erythema in the ciliary, conjunctival, and episcleral vessel beds; eyelid swelling; chemosis; and itching were evaluated at 7, 12, and 20 minutes after CAC. The OAI was calculated as a composite score of 6 signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis to assess global severity. Between-treatment differences in OAI scores were used to evaluate efficacy. Subjects were asked their eye drop preference at the conclusion of visit 3.

RESULTS

Subjects (n = 83) ranged in age from 20 to 70 years (mean, 42.5 years), 61.4% (n = 51) were female, and 94.0% (n = 78) were white. Both pheniramine/naphazoline and olopatadine were associated with significantly lower OAI scores than placebo at all 3 time points (all, P < 0.001). OAI scores were significantly lower with pheniramine/naphazoline than with olopatadine at 12 and 20 minutes (P = 0.005 and P = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this patient sample, studied in a CAC model of onset of action, prophylactic pheniramine/naphazoline was more effective than olopatadine and placebo in alleviating the signs and symptoms of the acute ocular allergic reaction, as measured by the OAI.

Mast cell stabilization and anti-histamine effects of olopatadine ophthalmic solution: a review of pre-clinical and clinical research

BACKGROUND

Histamine receptor activation and degranulation of mast cells are the mechanisms by which the ocular itching, hyperemia, chemosis, eyelid swelling, and tearing of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis are induced. Some of the topical solutions available as anti-allergy therapies are intended to interfere with these mechanisms, and the body of research regarding the capabilities of these therapeutic molecules continues to expand.

OBJECTIVE

To review the currently available literature regarding one topical ophthalmic anti-allergy agent, olopatadine (Patanol), and its anti-histaminic and mast cell stabilizing actions, both in pre-clinical and clinical settings.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Relevant research of laboratory, animal model, and clinical trial studies performed using olopatadine was reviewed. MEDLINE literature searches were conducted and supplemented by additional reports which furthered relevant discussion or were necessary to verify the information resulting from original searches.

RESULTS

Olopatadine demonstrates unique properties both pre-clinically and clinically which differentiate it from other therapeutic molecules in its class of dual action mast cell stabilizer/anti-histamine. Its non-perturbation of cell membranes, human conjunctival mast cell stabilization in vivo and in vitro, and superior efficacy as compared to other topical anti-allergic medications including mast cell stabilizers, anti-histamines, and dual action agents, all contribute to olopatadine's profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-reviewed literature suggests that olopatadine is clinically superior to the other anti-allergic molecules because of its strong anti-histaminic qualities and its unique ocular mast cell stabilizing properties.

A review of the use of olopatadine in allergic conjunctivitis

Ocular allergies are very common and range in intensity from mild, self-resolving, acute conditions to serious, chronic disease that can severely affect vision. The vast majority of sufferers experience relatively mild symptoms, which are often seasonal in nature. Treatments should be simple, comfortable and very safe. They should be able to respond to an ongoing attack but also provide long-term relief from symptoms. Mast cell degranulation is central to all forms of ocular allergic disease and so treatment has concentrated on preventing this process or antagonizing the effects of the primary mediator, histamine. Olopatadine is a relatively new selective H1 antagonist that has mast cell stabilizing properties and has been shown to affect release of TNFalpha and various cytokines from conjunctival epithelial cells. This paper reviews the local ocular use of olopatadine and discusses the place of the drug in the treatment of allergic eye disease.

Effects of a new formulation of olopatadine ophthalmic solution on nasal symptoms relative to placebo in two studies involving subjects with allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

A new formulation of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution (olopatadine 0.2%) was evaluated in two separate, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, hybrid environmental studies intended to determine efficacy and safety in subjects with histories of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In these 10- and 12-week trials (conducted April-August 2003 and July-December 2001, respectively), subjects assessed their ocular signs and symptoms. Additionally, subjects in the 10-week trial evaluated the frequency of their nasal symptoms while subjects in the 12-week trial evaluated both the frequency and severity of their nasal symptoms. The two trials had a combined enrollment of 500 subjects (217 males, 283 females) including 44 children aged 10-17 years; the combined population was 81.4% Caucasian, 9.2% Black, 2% Hispanic, and 7.4% other. Daily throughout these studies, either ragweed (fall study) or grass (spring study) pollen counts were obtained from each investigative center. Slope analyses were conducted on the nasal symptom assessments by pollen count.

RESULTS

The nasal results from the two clinical trials are presented herein. In the fall study, relative to placebo, olopatadine 0.2% significantly reduced the frequency of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0355) and itchy nose (p = 0.0032), and reduced the severity of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0451), itchy nose (p = 0.0178), and runny nose (p = 0.0327). In the spring study, olopatadine 0.2% significantly reduced the frequency of pollen effects on sneezing (p = 0.0017) and runny nose (p = 0.0031) relative to placebo. In the fall trial, 2 subjects discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events (tachycardia and dry eye), while in the spring study, no subject discontinued due to a treatment-related adverse event. No subject in either study suffered a treatment-related serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

For the subjects enrolled in these studies, olopatadine 0.2% appeared to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective in significantly reducing the frequency and/or severity of some effects of pollen on nasal symptoms.

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.

Ocular allergy treatment comparisons: azelastine and olopatadine

Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% and olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% are topical ocular allergy treatments that have demonstrated multiple pharmacologic actions, including antihistamine, mast cell stabilization, and inhibition of proinflammatory mediators. In this article, the mechanisms of action, efficacy, and tolerability of these two agents on ocular signs and symptoms are examined. By studying the various target sites of drug action, an enhanced clinical response algorithm of these topical ocular agents can be implemented to maximize the response for patients suffering from ocular allergy.

A review of olopatadine for the treatment of ocular allergy

Ocular allergy affects > 20% of the general population and many therapeutic preparations are available to individuals experiencing the most common forms--seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis. 0.1% Olopatadine topical ophthalmic solution is currently approved for the treatment of allergic signs and symptoms in patients > or = 3 years of age. Olopatadine is available in Europe as Opatanol) and in > 30 other countries as Patanol. It inhibits mast cell degranulation and antagonises histamine receptors to manage the itching, redness, chemosis, tearing and lid swelling of the ocular allergic reaction, and its mast cell stabilising ability has been demonstrated both in vitro (using human conjunctival mast cells) and in vivo (human clinical experience). This article reviews both the laboratory and clinical information available on olopatadine, prefaced by a discussion of the current understanding of the ocular allergic reaction and followed by the future implications for this compound. Both laboratory and clinical studies have established the efficacy, safety and comfort of olopatadine in several study design models and comparisons to other antiallergy medications. The application of olopatadine, specifically in the management of lid swelling, an allergic sign recalcitrant to therapy and nasal allergic symptoms has also been established. In the future, a new formulation containing 0.2% olopatadine exhibits a duration of action up to 24 h, supporting once-daily dosing.

An evaluation of the ocular drying effects of 2 systemic antihistamines: loratadine and cetirizine hydrochloride

BACKGROUND

Systemic antihistamines, such as loratadine and cetrizine hydrochloride, have proven efficacious in the control of many allergic conditions; however, patients complain about their drying effects.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the ocular drying effects of loratadine and cetirizine hydrochloride in individuals with normal ocular health exposed to a controlled adverse environment (CAE).

METHODS

Eighteen individuals completed a randomized, double-masked study. Participants were evaluated in a CAE (a chamber that regulates humidity, temperature, airflow, and visual tasking) at baseline and after taking 10 mg of either loratadine or cetirizine hydrochloride daily for 4 days. Keratitis, conjunctival staining, and tear film break-up time (TFBUT) were examined before and after a 45-minute CAE exposure. Participant-reported ocular discomfort was recorded every 5 minutes during CAE challenge.

RESULTS

After 4 days, use of loratadine yielded a mean increase of 0.75 points (107%) in keratitis (P < .001), a mean increase of 1.35 points (133%) in conjunctival staining (P < .001), a mean decrease of 1.38 seconds (33.7%) in TFBUT (P < .001), and a mean increase of 0.32 points (24.8%) in ocular discomfort (P = .05) vs baseline. After 4 days, use of cetirizine hydrochloride yielded a mean increase of 0.57 points (60%) in keratitis (P < .001), a mean increase of 0.7 points (49.7%) in conjunctival staining (P = .005), and a mean decrease of 0.76 seconds (19.6%) in TFBUT (P = .05) vs baseline. Loratadine was shown to induce 93% greater conjunctival staining after 4 days of use and CAE exposure vs cetirizine hydrochloride (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Loratadine and cetirizine hydrochloride induced signs and symptoms associated with ocular dryness, including increased corneal and conjunctival staining, decreased TFBUT, and increased ocular discomfort in healthy individuals. Loratadine induced significantly more conjunctival staining than cetirizine hydrochloride.

Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model

BACKGROUND

Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Patanol) and epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution (Elestat) are two topical antiallergic agents. Olopatadine is indicated for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis that include itching, redness, tearing, lid swelling, and chemosis. Epinastine is indicated for the prevention of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine and epinastine in the prevention of itching and conjunctival redness in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally-controlled, single center allergen challenge study. Ninety-six subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were screened, and the 66 who responded to conjunctival allergen challenge at visits 1 and 2 were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups at visit 3 to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine in one eye and epinastine in the fellow eye, (2) olopatadine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye, and (3) epinastine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye. Five minutes after study drop instillation, subjects were bilaterally challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at Visits 1 and 2. Subjective itching assessments were given at 3 min, 5 min, and 7 min post challenge. Objective redness and chemosis assessments were made at 10 min, 15 min, and 20 min post challenge. Paired sample two-tailed t-tests were performed on the mean scores at each time point to assess statistical significance in the differences between treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES;

RESULTS

Fifty-three subjects were randomized into the olopatadine/epinastine treatment group, the primary analysis group. Olopatadine treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean itching and conjunctival redness scores than the contralateral epinastine treated eyes, -0.19 (p = 0.003) and -0.52 (p < 0.001), respectively. Olopatadine treated eyes also exhibited significantly less chemosis -0.24 (p < 0.001), ciliary redness -0.55 (p < 0.001), and episcleral redness -0.58 (p < 0.001) than epinastine treated eyes.

CONCLUSION

Olopatadine is significantly more effective than epinastine in controlling itching, redness and chemosis associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the CAC model.

Randomized, double-masked comparison of olopatadine ophthalmic solution, mometasone furoate monohydrate nasal spray, and fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets using the conjunctival and nasal allergen challenge models

BACKGROUND

It is presumed that exposure to allergens in the environment occurs through both the eyes and the nose. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is typically treated with a nasal spray or systemic antihistamine, neither of which may provide adequate relief of the ocular component of the disease.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to gain a better understanding of the physiologic interaction between the conjunctival and nasal mucosa and thus help establish a profile for the most effective ocular treatment in patients whose allergies have both an ocular and a nasal component.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked clinical study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) and nasal allergen challenge (NAC) models. It compared the clinical signs and symptoms induced by CAC and NAC, the effects of drugs administered by 3 different routes, and the movement of fluorescein after instillation into the eye and nose (Jones test), and assessed levels of of inflammatory mediators in tears and nasal secretions. At visit l, subjects previously identified as CAC responders underwent NAC to determine the dose of allergen necessary to elicit a sufficient positive reaction. At visit 2, which took place 1 week later, subjects with a positive reaction at visit 1 were randomized to group A (CAC) or group B (NAC), and underwent challenge to confirm the allergen dose necessary to produce a positive reaction. Subjects who qualified were randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution, placebo nasal spray, and placebo tablets; mometasone furoate monohydrate 50-microg nasal spray, placebo topical solution, and placebo tablets; or fexofenadine hydrochloride 180-mg tablets, placebo topical solution, and placebo nasal spray. All study medications were administered according to their approved labeling: drops were administered twice daily in the eyes, and the nasal sprays and tablets were administered once daily. At visit 3, which took place 1 week after visit 2, subjects received study medication and 15 minutes later underwent CAC or NAC as before. The primary efficacy variables were ocular itching, ocular redness, and overall nasal symptoms (sneezing, rhino rrhea/postnasal drip, nasal pruritus, palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) rated on standard scales. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) was measured at each visit, and the Jones test was performed at visits 1 and 3. At baseline and after challenge at visits 2 and 3, tear and nasal lavage samples were collected from a subset of randomly selected subjects for analysis of eosinophil cationic protein and tryptase.

RESULTS

Seventy-three subjects (42 women, 31 men; mean age, 45.26 years [range, 21-73 years]) were screened, and all were randomized to treatment. Two subjects did not complete the study. CAC induced clinically significant (>1 unit difference) ocular and nasal signs and symptoms, whereas NAC induced clinically significant nasal signs and symptoms only. In group A, there was a greater reduction in ocular itching with olopatadine compared with mometasone and fexofenadine at 3 minutes (P = 0.003 and P = 0.008, respectively) and 5 minutes (P = 0.007 and P = 0.013) after challenge. Although the difference was not statistically significant, overall relief of conjunctival redness (average of 3 vessel beds) was greatest in the olopatadine group, followed by fexofenadine. In group B, prevention of total nasal symptoms was significantly greater with mometasone compared with fexofenadine at 20 minutes (P = 0.006) and 30 minutes (P = 0.014) after challenge. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in nasal symptom scores at any time point after CAC. There were also no significant differences in PNIF between treatment groups. Fluorescein was present in nasal secretions within 5 minutes of being instilled into the eye; no fluorescein was detected in the eye after instillation into the nose.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, exposure of the nasal mucosa to allergen resulted in allergic rhinitis, and exposure of the ocular the ocular surface to allergen resulted in conjunctivitis with a secondary effect in the nose. These results suggest movement of allergens, their mediators, and antiallergy drugs from the ocular surfaces into the nasal cavity, with no meaningful movement from the nasal cavity to the ocular surface. In this controlled model, both the systemic agent and the nasal spray failed to control ocular symptoms. The topical ophthalmic solution provided the most effective management of allergic ocular signs and symptoms, and the nasal spray was most effective for nasal symptoms. Combined use of a nasal spray and topical ophthalmic solution may provide maximal relief in patients whose allergies have both ocular and nasal components.

Ocular Allergic Disease: Mechanisms, Disease Sub-types, Treatment

Ocular allergy refers to a variety of hypersensitivity disorders that affect the lid, conjunctiva, and/or cornea. Its incidence is estimated at over 20% of the general population in the United States. This review will discuss the various forms of ocular allergy, their pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. New frontiers in mechanisms, therapy, and management in the office are emphasized throughout.

Comparison of ketotifen fumarate ophthalmic solution alone, desloratadine alone, and their combination for inhibition of the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model: a double-masked, placebo- and active-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Ketotifen fumarate is a topical antiallergic combination mast-cell stabilizer and antihistamine indicated for the temporary prevention of ocular itching due to allergic conjunctivitis. Desloratadine is a systemic antihistamine indicated for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of ketotifen 0.025% ophthalmic solution instilled in the eye, desloratadine 5-mg tablets taken orally, and their combination for prevention of the signs and symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, as induced by the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-masked, placebo- and active-controlled, single-center clinical trial. At visit l, the dose of allergen necessary to elicit a qualifying allergic reaction was determined for subjects meeting the entry criteria. At visit 2, the allergen dose determined at visit 1 was confirmed, and all subjects who had a qualifying ocular and nasal allergic reaction were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: ketotifen ophthalmic solution and placebo tablet, desloratadine tablet and placebo eyedrop, or ketotifen and desloratadine. Subjects were instructed to instill 1 drop into each eye twice daily and take 1 tablet with water once daily at the same time as the morning eyedrop for approximately 4 weeks. At visit 3, subjects brought in their medication and were given 1 drop of the eyedrop bilaterally and 1 tablet with water. Bilateral CAC was performed 2 hours after administration of medication. Using standardized scales, subjects rated ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes after CAC; ocular tearing and eyelid swelling at 10, 15, and 20 minutes after CAC; and nasal signs and symptoms (sneezing, rhinorrhea and postnasal drip, pruritus, and nasal congestion) at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes after CAC. The investigator graded ocular redness and chemosis at 10, 15, and 20 minutes after CAC. At all visits, subjects were offered an anti-allergy eyedrop to relieve any immediate ocular discomfort caused by CAC.

RESULTS

One hundred two subjects were screened-82 (55 women, 27 men; mean age, 42.8 years [range, 21-70 years]) were randomized to treatment, and 80 completed the study. Subjects in the group that received ketotifen (n = 27) and the group that received ketotifen with desloratadine (n = 26) had significantly lower mean itching scores compared with those in the group that received desloratadine alone (n = 27) at all time points (P </= 0.05). Total ocular redness, calculated by summing the mean redness scores for each of the 3 vessel beds, was significantly lower in the ketotifen group than in the other treatment groups at most time points (P </= 0.05). All treatments attenuated nasal symptoms; no statistically significant differences were noted between treatment groups, with the exception of the 50-minute time point, at which combination treatment was significantly more effective than ketotifen alone (P </= 0.05). The proportion of subjects who requested relief drops after CAC was significantly lower in both the ketotifen alone and combination treatment groups compared with the desloratadine alone group (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketotifen ophthalmic solution significantly decreased the signs and symptoms of ocular and nasal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The addition of ketotifen to the oral desloratadine regimen improved the overall antiallergic efficacy of both medications.

A comparison of the relative clinical efficacy of a single dose of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution versus placebo in inhibiting the signs and symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis as induced by the conjunctival allergen challenge model

BACKGROUND

Ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution is an antiallergic treatment currently available in the United States. It is indicated for the temporary prevention of ocular itching due to allergic conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the relative efficacy of ketotifen when applied topically to the eye, compared with placebo, in the treatment of nasal signs and symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis as induced by the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-center clinical study using the CAC model. Patients aged > or = 18 years, able to follow the study instructions, willing to avoid disallowed medications, and having a history of rhinoconjunctivitis and a positive skin test were eligible. At visit 1, the dose of allergen necessary to achieve a qualifying reaction was determined using bilateral ocular instillation of allergen to eligible patients. At visit 2, the allergen dose determined at visit 1 was confirmed, and all patients attaining a qualifying nasal reaction continued in the study. At visit 3, each patient was randomized to receive 1 drop of ketotifen bilaterally in the eyes or 1 drop of placebo bilaterally. Fifteen minutes after instillation of the study medication, bilateral CAC was performed. Patients rated nasal symptoms (sneezing, rhinorrhea and postnasal drip, nasal pruritus, palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) on standardized scales at 10, 20, and 30 minutes after CAC.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients (16 men, 16 women; mean age, 45 years [range, 28-70 years]) were randomized to treatment and completed the study. Nineteen patients received ketotifen and 13 received placebo. Nasal symptom scores in ketotifen-treated patients were statistically and clinically significantly fewer than in those treated with placebo at all time points (mean baseline corrected total nasal score: 10 minutes, P = 0.010; 20 minutes, P = 0.025; 30 minutes, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

In this study, topical ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution, when dosed ocularly, offered protecdon against the nasal signs and symptoms of acute allergic rhinoconjunctival reaction as induced by the CAC model.