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

Allergic Conjunctivitis: Review of Current Types, Treatments, and Trends

Allergic conjunctivitis is an allergen-induced immune response secondary to the binding of immunoglobulin-E (IgE) to sensitized mast cells. Approximately 40% of North Americans and 20% of the world's population are impacted by some form of allergy and it continues to increase in prevalence, especially among children. Specified IgE antibodies can be found in almost all cases of exposure to seasonal or perennial allergens. Activation and degranulation of mast cells lead to increased tear levels of histamine, tryptase, leukotrienes, cytokines, and prostaglandins. The release of these factors initiates the recruitment of inflammatory cells in the conjunctival mucosa, which causes the late-phase reaction. Signs and symptoms of ocular allergies include itching, tearing, chemosis, and hyperemia, which can lead to decreased productivity and poor quality of life. Many treatment options are available to improve symptoms, including, mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, dual-acting agents, steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), and other off-label treatment modalities. This review article provides an overview of different types of allergic conjunctivitis, its pathology and immunology, and recommended methods of treatment.

Efficacy and Toxicity Evaluation of Bepotastine Besilate 1.5% Preservative-Free Eye Drops Vs Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.2% Bak-Preserved Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

Purpose

To study the efficacy and toxic effects of bepotastine besilate 1.5% preservative-free (BB-PF) and olopatadine 0.2% BAK-preserved (OL-BAK) drops on the ocular surface of patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

Patients and Methods

Ninety-seven patients with allergic conjunctivitis diagnosis participated in a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients received either BB-PF (n=48) or OL-BAK (n=49), both administered once daily in the morning. The patients were followed for 60 days. Ocular itching was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included ocular symptoms, signs, and non-ocular symptoms associated with rhinoconjunctivitis. Conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) was performed to evaluate histopathological changes related to the toxic effects of preservatives.

Results

BB-PF treatment was associated with a 1.30 more probability of diminished ocular itching than OL-BAK (odds ratio (OR)=1.30; 95% CI=(0.96-1.7); p=0.086). No statistically significant differences were found between treatments in the resolution of other ocular symptoms or signs, except for tearing, which was superior in the BB-PF (OR=1.37; 95% (1.26-1.47); p<0.0001). BB-PF was superior in terms of the resolution of rhinorrhea (p=0.040) and nasal itching (p=0.037). After 60 days of treatment, the BB-PF group exhibited 2.0 times higher probability of having a lower Nelson scale score compared to the OL-BAK group (OR=2.00; 95% CI=(1.19-3.34); p=0.010).

Conclusion

Both medications presented a similar efficacy in terms of the resolution of ocular signs and symptoms associated with ocular conjunctivitis. BB-PF is superior in the resolution of non-ocular symptoms and safer for the ocular surface than OL-BAK.

Reproxalap Activity and Estimation of Clinically Relevant Thresholds for Ocular Itching and Redness in a Randomized Allergic Conjunctivitis Field Trial

INTRODUCTION

This clinical trial assessed the activity of reproxalap, a novel reactive aldehyde species modulator, and estimated clinically relevant thresholds for changes in ocular itching and redness in an allergic conjunctivitis field trial.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled phase 2 trial. Patients with ragweed-associated allergic conjunctivitis were assessed over 28 days in an environmental setting with approximately four doses per day of either 0.25% reproxalap, 0.5% reproxalap, or vehicle. Patients recorded ocular itching, redness, tearing, and eyelid swelling scores (each with a 0-4 scale, except for a 0-3 scale for swelling), and completed the Allergic Conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire at the beginning and end of the trial.

RESULTS

Mixed model of repeated measures analysis demonstrated statistically lower itching and tearing scores (pooled P = 0.026 and P < 0.001, respectively) and numerically lower redness and eyelid swelling scores than vehicle on days when pollen exceeded the 95th percentile value. Using three anchor-based and three distribution-based approaches, the meaningful within-patient change and the between-group meaningful difference for patient-reported ocular itching and redness was estimated to be approximately 0.5. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event associated with reproxalap was transient irritation upon instillation.

CONCLUSION

In a field clinical trial, reproxalap was well tolerated and superior to vehicle in reducing ocular itching on high-pollen days. The clinical meaningfulness threshold estimates of 0.5 units are among the first such calculations generated for the standard ocular itching and redness scores, providing important context for the clinical interpretation of clinical trials in allergic conjunctivitis.

Therapeutic Targets in Allergic Conjunctivitis

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a common condition resulting from exposure to allergens such as pollen, animal dander, or mold. It is typically mediated by allergen-induced crosslinking of immunoglobulin E attached to receptors on primed conjunctival mast cells, which results in mast cell degranulation and histamine release, as well as the release of lipid mediators, cytokines, and chemokines. The clinical result is conjunctival hyperemia, tearing, intense itching, and chemosis. Refractory and chronic cases can result in ocular surface complications that may be vision threatening. Patients who experience even mild forms of this disease report an impact on their quality of life. Current treatment options range from non-pharmacologic therapies to ocular and systemic options. However, to adequately control AC, the use of multiple agents is often required. As such, a precise understanding of the immune mechanisms responsible for this ocular surface inflammation is needed to support ongoing research for potential therapeutic targets such as chemokine receptors, cytokine receptors, non-receptor tyrosine kinases, and integrins. This review utilized several published articles regarding the current therapeutic options to treat AC, as well as the pathological and immune mechanisms relevant to AC. This review will also focus on cellular and molecular targets in AC, with particular emphasis on potential therapeutic agents that can attenuate the pathology and immune mechanisms driven by cells, receptors, and molecules that participate in the immunopathogenesis and immunopathology of AC.

Impact of Treatment for Nasal Cavity Disorders on Sleep Quality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of treatment for patients with nasal obstruction secondary to allergic rhinitis (AR) and nasal septal deviation (NSD) on sleep quality.

DATA SOURCES

Primary studies were identified though PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was performed by querying databases for articles published through August 2020. Studies were included that reported on objective sleep parameters (apnea-hypopnea index) and sinonasal and sleep-specific patient-reported outcome measures: Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (EpSS), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).

RESULTS

The database search yielded 1414 unique articles, of which 28 AR and 7 NSD studies were utilized for meta-analysis. A total of 9037 patients (8515 with AR, 522 with NSD) were identified with a mean age of 35.0 years (35.3 for AR, 34.0 for NSD). Treatment for AR and NSD significantly improved subjective sleep quality. For AR, the EpSS mean difference was -1.5 (95% CI, -2.4 to -0.5; P = .002) and for the PSQI, -1.7 (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.2; P < .00001). For NSD, the EpSS mean difference was -3.2 (95% CI, -4.2 to -2.2; P < .00001) and for the PSQI, -3.4 (95% CI, -6.1 to -0.6; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Subjective sleep quality significantly improved following treatment for AR and NSD. There were insufficient data to demonstrate that objective metrics of sleep quality similarly improved.

Effects of ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops on symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Patients are often dissatisfied with the symptom control obtained from available pharmacological treatments for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). Therefore, patients seek for alternative, nonpharmacological options to treat their symptoms. Here, we assessed the efficacy of ectoine nasal spray and ectoine eye drops in comparison to placebo to prevent nasal and ocular symptoms following exposure to pollen in patients with ARC.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 46 patients with ARC applied ectoine eye drops and nasal spray in immediate succession or placebo eye drops and nasal spray for 13 days before ARC symptoms were induced in an environmental exposure chamber. Primary endpoint was the baseline-adjusted area under the curve (AUC) posttreatment total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and the total ocular symptom score (TOSS) using analysis of covariance. Secondary endpoints were, amongst others, total nonnasal symptoms score (TNNSS) and nasal patency (measured using acoustic rhinometry).

RESULTS

Treatment with both ectoine and placebo reduced TNSS, TOSS, and TNNSS upon allergen exposure. The analysis of parameters at baseline and after allergen exposure demonstrated that ectoine induced a clinically relevant improvement in ARC symptoms compared to placebo: the least square mean difference for baseline-adjusted AUC was -1.87 for TNSS, -1.45 for TOSS and -2.20 for TNNSS. The mean change from baseline AUC of TNNSS for ectoine was also significantly greater than for placebo (-5.49 vs. -3.46; p = 0.011). Ectoine significantly improved the singular symptoms "sneezing," "watery eyes" and "itchy eyes" (p ≤ 0.021) as well as "itchy ear/palate" (p = 0.036) in comparison to placebo. Mean cross sectional areas of the nasal cavity were reduced to a lesser extent after treatment with ectoine (-0.020 ± 0.022) than with placebo (-0.047 ± 0.029). The current study also demonstrated a very good safety profile of ectoine treatment. Few AEs with comparable numbers in both treatment groups were reported during the study, which were mild in severity and resolved without medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that ectoine is effective in reducing nasal and ocular symptoms associated with ARC. Being a natural, bacteria derived stress protection molecule functioning by a physical mode of action, it therefore represents an alternative nonpharmacological treatment option.

Rhinologic disease and its impact on sleep: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rhinologic disease can be responsible for systemic symptoms affecting mood, cognition, and sleep. It is unclear whether sleep disturbance in specific rhinologic disorders (chronic rhinosinusitis [CRS], rhinitis, and nasal septal deviation [NSD]) is an obstructive phenomenon or due to other mechanisms. In this review we examine the impact of CRS, rhinitis, and NSD on objective and subjective sleep outcome metrics and draw comparisons to normal controls and patients with known obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

A systematic review of 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) was performed. Studies reporting on objective (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI], respiratory disturbance index [RDI], oxygen nadir) and subjective (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [EpSS], Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI], Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS]) sleep parameters and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test [SNOT-22], Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ], Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation [NOSE]) were included.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 1414 unique articles, of which 103 were included for analysis. Baseline PROMs were at the high end of normal to abnormal for all 3 conditions: EpSS: CRS (9.8 ± 4.0), rhinitis (9.7 ± 4.3), and NSD (8.9 ± 4.6); and PSQI: CRS (11.0 ± 4.5), rhinitis (6.1 ± 3.7), and NSD (8.6 ± 3.5). Objective measures demonstrated a mild to moderate OSA in the studied diseases: AHI: CRS (10.4 ± 11.5), rhinitis (8.6 ± 8.8), and NSD (13.0 ± 6.9). There were significant differences when compared with reported norms in all measured outcomes (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Sleep quality is impacted by rhinologic (CRS, rhinitis, NSD) disease. There is likely a mild obstructive component contributing to poor sleep, but other contributing factors may be involved.

A contemporary look at allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic eye disease is common, yet often overlooked in North America. In the U.S., up to 40% of the population is deemed to be affected and this number is growing. Symptoms and signs of ocular allergy can lead to decreased productivity and negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Various treatment options exist to achieve symptom control. For allergic conjunctivitis, ophthalmic agents include antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, dual-activity agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), steroids and some off-label treatments. Immunotherapy is recommended as a therapeutic option. This review provides a summary of the forms of ocular allergies, with a focus on symptoms and signs, impact on QoL, physical examination, diagnosis and therapeutic options of allergic conjunctivitis. Through multidisciplinary collaborations, a simplified algorithm for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis is proposed for Canadian clinical practice.

Once-daily olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis

Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% is a new once-daily formulation of olopatadine that is indicated for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. This formulation has demonstrated a safety, efficacy and comfort profile similar to that of olopatadine 0.1%. The advantages of once-daily dosing, however, may include cost-effectiveness, improvement in patient compliance and an improvement in quality of life. This review article will summarize literature reports on the 0.2% formulation of olopatadine from the standpoint of efficacy, safety, total treatment costs, therapeutic outcomes, patient compliance and effect on quality of life.

Sublingual immunotherapy for treating allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic ocular symptoms, although frequently trivialised, are common and represent an important comorbidity of allergic rhinitis. Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis, but its effects on symptoms of ocular allergy have not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of SLIT compared with placebo for reductions in ocular symptoms, topical ocular medication requirements and conjunctival immediate allergen sensitivity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2011), Web of Science (January 1970 to January 2011), Biosis Previews, (January 1979 to January 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (January 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (January 2011), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (www.actr.org.au) (July 2010), SCOPUS (November 2008) and the UK Clinical Trials Gateway (January 2010). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. All electronic databases except for SCOPUS, the UK Clinical Trials Gateway and ANZCTR were last searched on 19 January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), double-masked and placebo controlled, which evaluated the efficacy of SLIT in patients with symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) or allergic conjunctivitis (AC).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the total ocular symptom scores. Secondary endpoints included individual ocular symptom scores (such as itchy eyes, red eyes, watery eyes, swollen eyes), ocular medication scores (eye drops) and conjunctival immediate allergen sensitivity (CIAS). Data were analysed and reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials (n = 3958 total participants; n= 2011 SLIT and n = 1947 placebo) had available data to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT on AC and were included in the meta-analyses. Heterogeneity among studies (I(2) statistic) was around 50% or below for all endpoints. Sublingual immunotherapy induced a significant reduction in both total ocular symptom scores (SMD -0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.28; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 59%) and individual ocular symptom scores for red eyes (SMD -0.33; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.22; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 27%), itchy eyes (SMD -0.31; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.20; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 46%) and watery eyes (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.11; P < 0.0001; I(2) = 42%) compared to placebo. Those participants having active treatment showed an increase in the threshold dose for the conjunctival allergen provocation test (SMD 0.35; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.69; P = 0.05; I(2) = 43%). No significant reduction was observed in ocular eye drops use (SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.03; P = 0.13; I(2) = 34%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, SLIT is moderately effective in reducing total and individual ocular symptom scores in participants with ARC and AC. There were however some concerns about the overall quality of the evidence-base, this relating to inadequate descriptions of allocation concealment in some studies, statistical heterogeneity and the possibility of publication bias. There is a need for further large rigorously designed studies that study long-term effectiveness after discontinuation of treatment and establish the cost-effectiveness of SLIT.

Treatment of allergic conjunctivitis with olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops

Olopatadine hydrochloride exerts a wide range of pharmacological actions such as histamine H₁ receptor antagonist action, chemical mediator suppressive action, and eosinophil infiltration suppressive action. Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Patanol^®) was introduced to the market in Japan in October 2006. In a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) test, olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution significantly suppressed ocular itching and hyperemia compared with levocabastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution, and the number of patients who complained of ocular discomfort was lower in the olopatadine group than in the levocabastine group. Conjunctival cell membrane disruption was observed in vitro in the ketotifen fumarate group, epinastine hydrochloride group, and azelastine hydrochloride group, but not in the olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution group, which may potentially explain the lower discomfort felt by patients on instillation. Many other studies in humans have revealed the superiority of olopatadine 0.1% hydrochloride eye drops to several other anti-allergic eye drops. Overseas, olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% ophthalmic solution for a once-daily regimen has been marketed under the brand name of Pataday^®. It is expected that olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solutions may be used in patients with a more severe spectrum of allergic conjunctival diseases, such as vernal keratoconjunctivitis or atopic keratoconjunctivitis, in the near future.

Non-clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and safety findings for the antihistamine bepotastine besilate

SCOPE

The purpose of this review is to examine published non-clinical literature on the antihistamine bepotastine besilate, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacologic properties.

METHODS

Standard literature searches using diverse databases were used to find articles on bepotastine besilate published between 1997 and 2009. Articles primarily described non-clinical data utilized for the development of an oral formulation of bepotastine besilate and were published in Japanese. No publications of non-clinical data for an ophthalmic formulation were found in the database searches.

FINDINGS

Bepotastine besilate is a second-generation antihistamine drug possessing selective histamine H(1) receptor antagonist activity. Bepotastine has negligible affinity for receptors associated with undesirable adverse effects, including histamine H(3), α(1)-, α(2)-, and β-adrenergic, serotonin (5-HT(2)), muscarinic, and benzodiazepine receptors. Bepotastine possesses additional anti-allergic activity including stabilization of mast cell function, inhibition of eosinophilic infiltration, inhibition of IL-5 production, and inhibition of LTB(4) and LTD(4) activity. Bepotastine in vivo dose-dependently inhibited the acceleration of histamine-induced vascular permeability and inhibited homologous passive cutaneous anaphylaxis in guinea pig studies. In mouse models of itching, oral bepotastine inhibited the frequency and duration of scratching behavior. Multiple in vivo animal toxicology studies have demonstrated bepotastine to be safe with no significant effects on respiratory, circulatory, central nervous, digestive, or urinary systems. The concentration of bepotastine after intravenous administration of bepotastine besilate (3 mg/kg) in rats was lower in the brain than in plasma, predicting reduced sedation effects compared to older antihistamines.

CONCLUSION

Non-clinical in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated bepotastine is a histamine H(1) receptor antagonist with favorable pharmacokinetic, pharmacologic, safety, and antihistamine properties as well as operating on other pathways leading to allergic inflammation beyond those directly involving the histamine H(1) receptor.

Olopatadine hydrochloride in children: efficacy and safety for perennial allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of antihistamines in perennial allergic rhinitis in children has been evaluated in studies using active comparators, whereas placebo-controlled studies are very few. A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical study was carried out to evaluate the dose-response relationship and superiority of olopatadine hydrochloride over placebo in children aged 7 to 16 years with perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Subjects received twice daily treatment for two weeks with either olopatadine 2.5 mg, 5 mg or placebo after a one-week observation period. Efficacy was assessed based on the diary card score the subject (or guardian) recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 302 subjects randomized, two were excluded from analysis: one did not receive treatment; the other was not monitored for efficacy parameters. The remaining 300 subjects (97 in the placebo group, 103 in the olopatadine 2.5-mg group and 100 in the olopatadine 5-mg group) constituted the full analysis set (FAS) for the efficacy analysis. As a primary endpoint, the total three nasal symptom score (for sneezing, rhinorrhea and nasal congestion) at final assessment was compared with baseline or the score obtained in the observation period. The change from baseline was then tested using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline score as covariate. Williams' test was applied to the least squares means estimated from this ANCOVA model for each treatment group, resulting in showing the monotonicity Williams' test assumed. The total three nasal symptom score significantly improved in the 5-mg group compared with the placebo group (p = 0.019). In contrast, the 2.5-mg group did not differ statistically from the placebo group. Adverse events occurred in 33.7% (33/98 subjects) in the placebo group, 35.9% (37/103 subjects) in the 2.5-mg group and 35.0% (35/100 subjects) in the 5-mg group. There were no serious or severe adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg twice daily is an effective and safe treatment for perennial allergic rhinitis in children.

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.

Relative strength of relationships of nasal congestion and ocular symptoms with sleep, mood and productivity

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion associated with allergic rhinitis has been shown to be the most bothersome symptom. Ocular symptoms may be troublesome to patients as well.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the relative strength of relationships of nasal congestion and ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis with patient-reported outcomes of sleep quality; practical problems; somnolence; impairment at work, class, activities; and mood.

METHODS

Patients (n = 404) presenting with symptoms of allergic rhinitis completed five patient-reported outcomes that assessed the effect of morning allergic rhinitis symptoms on patients' reports of sleep, work and activity impairment, and mood. Multiple regression analyses were used to compare the relative strength of relationships of congestion and ocular symptoms with the patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

The majority of patients had both nasal congestion and ocular symptoms at baseline. A single nasal congestion item and a 3-item ocular symptom score were significantly related to the patient-reported outcomes: those with more severe congestion or ocular symptoms reported more negative scores on the patient-reported outcomes. Nasal congestion had the stronger relationship with patient-reported outcomes total scores or subscales in 14 of 20 regressions.

CONCLUSION

Although nasal congestion is generally more strongly related to the patient-reported outcomes, ocular symptoms have a significant negative effect on patients' lives. Study limitations include: (1) only baseline data were used because of greater severity and variability of symptoms scores; we are unable to establish causal relationships or discuss change, only correlation/covariation; (2) recruitment took place from September through November, thus different patients might have been recruited if sampling took place during the spring; (3) patients were screened for nasal congestion not for ocular symptoms, though there was high co-occurrence of each. These limitations aside, congestion and ocular symptoms are troublesome to patients and typically co-occur. Evaluating and treating these symptoms are key to managing allergic rhinitis and improving patient-reported outcomes.

Management of allergic conjunctivitis: an evaluation of the perceived comfort and therapeutic efficacy of olopatadine 0.2% and azelastine 0.05% from two prospective studies

PURPOSE

Results from 2 patient-reported outcome studies of allergic conjunctivitis sufferers who used olopatadine 0.2% and azelastine 0.05% are analyzed.

METHODS

The PACE (Pataday Allergic Conjunctivitis Evaluation) multi-center, prospective, open-label study examined patient perceptions of olopatadine 0.2% once daily (qd) and previous twice daily (bid) allergic conjunctivitis medications via questionnaire in allergic conjunctivitis sufferers who had previously used bid medication and then initiated olopatadine. A second conjunctival antigen challenge (CAC) study evaluated comfort of 4 allergic conjunctivitis medications.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients from the PACE study (N = 125) with prior azelastine use were examined. Significantly more patients rated themselves "very satisfied" with current olopatadine use compared with past azelastine use on drop comfort (p < 0.0001), speed of relief (p = 0.0004), and overall satisfaction (70% vs 16%, p < 0.0001). Significantly more patients reported olopatadine "very effective" against swelling compared with azelastine (47% vs 8%, p = 0.0404). In the CAC study (N = 36), data from olopatadine (n = 8), azelastine (n = 9) and placebo (N = 36) groups were reported. Olopatadine was rated significantly more comfortable than azelastine upon instillation (p = 0.0223), at 30 seconds (p = 0.0479), and at 1 minute after instillation (p = 0.0240).

CONCLUSION

In the reported studies, olopatadine 0.2% qd was more comfortable than azelastine 0.05% and preferred by patients with allergic conjunctivitis by a ratio of 4:1.

ARIA-suggested drugs for allergic rhinitis: what impact on quality of life? A GA2LEN review

Allergic diseases constitute a global health problem, as they have an increasing economic and social impact and, especially, they can deeply interfere with the patients' daily life, being a cause of physical and emotional discomfort. This is why the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) has become increasingly important in health care research; in fact, the assessment of the impact the disease and its treatment have on patients, provides a more comprehensive approach in outcome evaluation. Numerous validated questionnaires are available and many studies have been performed evaluating HRQoL in people affected by allergic rhinitis (AR), thus testifying a great interest in this topic. The aims of the present review are: to examine the scientific literature of the last 3 years dealing with the impact of AR treatments suggested by allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma guidelines on patients' QoL, and to identify the unexplored or not-fully-investigated areas concerning this issue.

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.

Ocular toxicity of systemic asthma and allergy treatments

Systemic medications, such as antihistaminic and anti-inflammatory agents used in the treatment of asthma and allergy, may have adverse effects on the eye. The major adverse effects on the eye have included cataracts, glaucoma, and tear-film dysfunction (dry-eye syndrome). The use of inhaled corticosteroids (bronchial and nasal) has been associated with mild systemic effects when compared with oral corticosteroids. The development of cataracts and glaucoma has been more commonly associated with earlier "hard" oral and inhaled steroids that affected individuals with an inherent high susceptibility or those who used them for several years. Whereas oral antihistamines commonly have an effect on allergies within hours, they also may exacerbate dry-eye complaints that commonly complicate symptoms with various forms of tear film dysfunction or conjunctival hyperreactivity. Clinicians should be aware that other systemic agents may complicate their attempts to maximize the treatment of ocular allergies.