Low dose clemastine inhibits sneezing and rhinorrhea during the early nasal allergic reaction

Development of Eco-Friendly Scattering and Fluorimetric Methods for the Determination of Clemastine Through Its Interaction with Eosin Y: Assessment of Whiteness, Blueness, and Greenness Tools

For the first time, clemastine was estimated in this work utilizing two validated resonance Rayleigh scattering (RRS) and fluorimetric methods. The methods relied on forming an association complex in an acidic medium between eosin Y reagent and clemastine. In the spectrofluorimetric approach, the investigated drug was quantified by quenching the fluorescence-emission intensity of eosin Y at 543.5 nm. The RRS method relied on enhancing the RRS spectrum at 331.8 nm, which is produced when eosin Y interacts with clemastine. Suitable conditions were established for the reaction to achieve maximum sensitivity. The linear values obtained from the spectrofluorimetric approach and the RRS method fall into the ranges of 0.2-1.5 µg mL- 1 and 0.25-2.0 µg mL- 1, respectively. It was established that the detection limits for these methods were 0.045 µg mL- 1 and 0.059 µg mL- 1, respectively. The developed methodologies yielded acceptable recoveries when used to estimate the quantity of clemastine in its pharmaceutical tablet dosage form. Regarding the use of greener solvents that were chosen, the suggested and reported methods were compared with the help of the Green Solvents Selecting (GSST) tool for assessing hazardous solvents to achieve sustainability. Furthermore, analytical Eco scale and comprehensive assessments of whiteness, blueness, and greenness were carried out utilizing Modified NEMI, ComplexGAPI, and AGREE evaluation tools. Additionally, recently developed tools such as BAGI and RGB 12 were applied to assess the blueness and the whiteness of the suggested methods.

Promotion of the genipin crosslinked chitosan-fiber hydrogel loaded with sustained release of clemastine fumarate in diabetic wound repair

Diabetic skin disorders are lingering and refractory clinical diseases. In this study, a genipin-crosslinked porous chitosan fiber (CSF) hydrogel was fabricated to achieve rapid wound healing. By embedding clemastine fumarate (CF) in the CSF hydrogel pores, we synthesised a CSF/CF hydrogel for the treatment of diabetic wounds. The microstructure, chemical elements, spectral variation, mechanical properties, swelling ratios, degradability, and toxicity of the CSF/CF hydrogels were studied. Compared with the typical CS power hydrogel, the porous CSF hydrogel crosslinked with genipin possesses a stable structure and improved physicochemical properties. Moreover, CF was slowly released from the CSF hydrogel. Molecular simulation also showed that CF was evenly embedded inside the cavity formed by the novel CSF hydrogel. The results suggested that CF can resist damage from high glucose levels and promote proliferation, tube formation, and migration of endothelial cells (ECs) and fibroblasts. The CSF/CF hydrogel promoted wound healing in a rat model. Mechanistically, the beneficial effect of CF on wound healing may be related to activation of the MEK/ERK and PI3K/Akt signalling pathways. In conclusion, genipin-crosslinked CSF/CF hydrogel can accelerate wound healing and may be an effective therapeutic method for treating diabetic skin lesions.

Drug repurposing: Clemastine fumarate and neurodegeneration

Neurodegenerative diseases have been a weighty problem in elder people who might be stricken with motor or/and cognition defects with lower life quality urging for effective treatment. Drugs are costly from development to market, so that drug repurposing, exploration of existing drugs for novel therapeutic purposes, becomes a wise and popular strategy to raise new treatment options. Clemastine fumarate, different from anti-allergic effect as H1 histamine antagonist, was screened and identified as promising drug for remyelination and autophagy enhancement. Surprisingly, fumarate salt also has similar effect. Hence, whether clemastine fumarate would make a protective impact on neurodegenerative diseases and what contribution fumarate probably makes are intriguing to us. In this review, we summarize the potential mechanism surrounding clemastine fumarate in current literature, and try to distinguish independent or synergistic effect between clemastine and fumarate, aiming to find worthwhile research direction for neurodegeneration diseases.

Evidence of Maxillary Sinus Inflammation in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Objective. Allergic rhinitis has been frequently associated with both acute and chronic sinusitis. Previous studies have shown an influx of eosinophils into the maxillary sinus after nasal challenge with allergen. The objective of this study was to determine, in humans, if the development of seasonal allergic inflammation, secondary to natural allergen exposure, leads to similar inflammation within the maxillary sinus.

Study Design. Prospective, longitudinal study.

Setting. Academic medical center and research laboratory.

Subjects and Methods. Eighteen subjects were evaluated in and out of the ragweed allergy season using subjective measures (nasal symptoms, quality of life), nasal secretory response to methacholine challenge, and evaluation of biomarkers in nasal and sinus lavages.

Results. The subjects became symptomatic during the season and reported worse quality of life and increased nasal reactivity to methacholine. The total number of eosinophils obtained by nasal lavage during the season (median= 35,691) was significantly higher compared with out of season (median = 2811, P ≤ .02). Similarly, there were significantly more eosinophils, albeit to a lesser magnitude, in the maxillary sinus during the season (median = 4248) compared with the out-of-season samples (median = 370, P ≤ .02).

Conclusion. The authors provide evidence that natural exposure to pollen during an individual’s allergy season leads to both nasal and sinus inflammation, strengthening the association between allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. The mechanism of this inflammatory response needs to be elucidated.

Nasal ocular reflexes and eye symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic patients often complain of eye symptoms during the allergy season. A possible mechanism for these eye symptoms is a nasal ocular reflex.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate eye symptoms after nasal allergen challenge.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, 20 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were challenged in 1 nostril with antigen, and the response was monitored in both nostrils and in both eyes. Symptoms were recorded. Filter paper disks (intranasally) and Schirmer strips (intraocularly) were used for collecting secretions, which were subsequently eluted for the measurement of histamine and albumin levels. Patients were treated once topically at the site of challenge with azelastine or placebo.

RESULTS

After placebo treatment, ipsilateral nasal challenge caused nasal symptoms and an increase in secretion weights; both were blocked by treatment with azelastine. Histamine and albumin levels increased only at the site of nasal challenge. Azelastine pretreatment inhibited the increase in albumin but not histamine levels. Symptoms of itchy and watery eyes increased significantly compared with symptoms with sham challenge after nasal allergen and were blocked by azelastine use. Ocular secretion weights increased bilaterally after placebo use and were not inhibited by azelastine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal allergen challenge releases histamine at the site of the challenge, which probably initiates a nasonasal and a nasal ocular reflex. This reflex is reduced by an H1-receptor antagonist applied at the site of the challenge. The eye symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis probably arise, in part, from a naso-ocular reflex.

A comparison of nasal clearance after treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis with budesonide and mometasone

OBJECTIVE

Evidence in vitro suggests that benzalkonium chloride, a preservative in many intranasal preparations, interferes with ciliary function and thus could potentially interfere with mucociliary transport, the mechanism for clearing secretions from the nasal cavity.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a parallel randomized study with 10 subjects in each arm comparing Rhinocort AQUA (an intranasal steroid [budesonide] spray without benzalkonium chloride) and Nasonex (an intranasal steroid [mometasone furoate] spray with benzalkonium chloride). Before and after 2 weeks of treatment, subjects completed a Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and underwent a measurement of nasal clearance of a radioactive colloidal spray into the nose.

RESULTS

The groups were matched at entry for nasal clearance, even though there was variability among subjects. The amount of change after 2 weeks of treatment (Delta before versus after treatment) showed a significant difference in nasal clearance favoring budesonide. After 2 weeks of treatment, both budesonide and mometasone demonstrated overall improvement in quality of life as assessed by the RQLQ. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Our study extends the observation in vitro that demonstrates the adverse effect of benzalkonium chloride on cilia to a measurement in vivo of clearance. The effects after 2 weeks might not reflect changes after longer periods of treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

To determine the clinical significance of the small improvement in mucociliary transport will require large clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of clemastine-pseudoephedrine-acetaminophen versus pseudoephedrine-acetaminophen in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in a 1-day, placebo-controlled park study

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis afflicts more than 40 million people in the United States and is a leading cause of reduced productivity at work and in school. Patients with allergic rhinitis have a wide range of symptoms that are often treated with oral combination products that contain antihistamines, decongestants, and analgesics.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the onset of action and the extent of efficacy and safety of a combination (CPA) of clemastine (0.68 mg), pseudoephedrine (60 mg), and acetaminophen (1,000 mg) versus a combination (PA) of pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen versus placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The primary goal was to evaluate the benefit of adding clemastine to the PA combination product to treat the symptoms of SAR.

METHOD

A 1-day, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group park study was organized, and medication was given at 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM.

RESULTS

A total of 298 subjects participated at two outdoor facilities. The primary efficacy outcome was the major symptom complex score averaged over the period of 2 to 5 hours after each dose. Mean absolute and percentage reduction in major symptom complex averaged over the period of 2 to 5 hours in the CPA group was significantly superior to those of either the PA (P < 0.01) or placebo (P < 0.03) groups. Somnolence, fatigue, and nausea were the most common volunteered adverse events; only somnolence was significantly greater after CPA than after either PA or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with CPA was safe and highly effective in reducing symptoms associated with SAR. It was more effective than either PA or placebo over most of the postdose observation period.

Effects of fexofenadine on the early response to nasal allergen challenge

BACKGROUND

Previous studies using nasal allergen challenge models have shown that terfenadine, an H1 antihistamine, inhibits histamine release during the early response to allergen provocation. Fexofenadine, the active metabolite of terfenadine, has strong H1-antihistaminic activity and no cardiac effects. Clinical studies have documented the efficacy of fexofenadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether fexofenadine, like terfenadine, inhibits histamine and tryptase release during the early allergic response.

METHODS

Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study in 20 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis, out of their allergy season (median age 27.5 years, 13 males and 7 females). Subjects were medicated with either placebo or fexofenadine 180 mg orally daily for 1 week followed by nasal challenge with allergen. After each challenge, sneezes and nasal symptoms were recorded, and a nasal lavage was obtained for the assay of albumin, an indicator of vascular permeability, and histamine and tryptase, indicators of mast cell degranulation.

RESULTS

When patients were on placebo, allergen challenges led to significant increases in all measured parameters compared with the sham challenges with diluent. Treatment with fexofenadine resulted in inhibition of allergen-induced symptoms and increased vascular permeability, but not the release of histamine and tryptase.

CONCLUSION

Fexofenadine is an effective H1 antihistamine, but in contrast to its parent compound, terfenadine, it does not affect the release of the mast cell mediators histamine and tryptase.

Effects of intranasal azelastine on the response to nasal allergen challenge

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Azelastine, a second-generation H1-receptor antagonist, is available for topical administration. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of topical intranasal azelastine on the early-phase and the late-phase allergic responses and on nasal hyper-responsiveness to methacholine.

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study in 20 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis, out of their allergy season.

METHODS

Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or two puffs of azelastine twice a day (548 microg/d) for 2 weeks followed by nasal challenge with allergen. Twenty-four hours later, while still receiving treatment, subjects underwent a nasal lavage and a nasal challenge with methacholine. End points included symptom scores, levels of mediators and number of eosinophils in nasal lavages, and the weight of secretions after methacholine challenge.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, treatment with intranasal azelastine resulted in significant reductions in allergen-induced sneezing, rhinorrhea, itching, nasal congestion, and levels of albumin during the early-phase response (P <.05). Azelastine had no effect on levels of histamine or tryptase during the early-phase response. There was a significant eosinophil influx 24 hours after challenge, which was not inhibited by azelastine. Treatment with azelastine had no effect on the levels of albumin, interleukin-4, interleukin-5, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and eosinophil cationic protein during the late-phase response. However, azelastine did show a significant inhibitory effect on the methacholine response 24 hours after nasal allergen challenge (P <.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of intranasal azelastine are similar to those of oral second-generation antihistamines.

Hot, humid air increases cellular influx during the late-phase response to nasal challenge with antigen

BACKGROUND

Inhalation of hot, humid air (HHA: 37 degrees C, > 95% relative humidity (RH)) partially inhibits the early response to nasal challenge with antigen.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether HHA inhibited the late-phase response to nasal challenge with antigen and increased hyper-responsiveness of the nasal mucosa to histamine.

METHODS

Twenty subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis, outside of their allergy season, participated in a randomized, 2-way cross-over study. The subjects continuously breathed room air (25 degrees C, 30% RH) or HHA delivered via a face mask during the entire experiment. Subjects were challenged intranasally with antigen 1 h after beginning conditioning. The response was monitored by symptoms and nasal lavage at 2-h intervals after the last antigen challenge. Eight hours after antigen challenge, nasal challenge with histamine was performed.

RESULTS

Exposure to HHA significantly increased nasal mucosal temperature from baseline without affecting nasal secretion osmolality. HHA significantly inhibited antigen-induced sneezes, congestion, pruritus, and human serum albumin levels during the early response to antigen challenge. HHA exposure, however, was associated with an 8-fold increase in the eosinophil influx and a 15-fold increase in the levels of eosinophil cationic protein during the late-phase response compared to room air. There were no significant differences in nasal hyper-responsiveness to histamine during either exposure.

CONCLUSION

HHA partially decreases the early response to nasal challenge with antigen, but dramatically increases eosinophil influx. Increasing eosinophil number had no effects on the hyper-responsiveness to histamine. We speculate that the physical conditions of air differentially impact the stages of allergic inflammation.

The nasal passage of subjects with asthma has a decreased ability to warm and humidify inspired air

We previously showed that individuals with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) had a reduced ability to condition air, which was improved by inflammation. We hypothesized that individuals with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) would condition air like SAR with inflammation. Because individuals with asthma usually have inflammation in the nose, we hypothesized that they would condition air like individuals with PAR. We performed a prospective, parallel study on 15 normal subjects, 15 subjects with SAR outside their allergy season, 15 subjects with PAR, and 15 subjects with asthma. Cold, dry air (CDA) was delivered to the nose and the temperature and humidity of the air were measured before entering and after exiting the nasal cavity. The total water gradient (TWG) was calculated and represents the nasal conditioning capacity. The TWG in the SAR group was significantly lower than that in normal subjects. There were no significant differences in TWG between the PAR and normal groups. Subjects with asthma had a significantly lower TWG than did normal subjects. There was a significant negative correlation between TWG and Aas score in the group with asthma (r(s) = -0.8, p = 0.0007). Our data show that subjects with asthma have a reduced ability of the nose to condition CDA compared with normal subjects, but which is similar to SAR out of season.

Natural and induced allergic responses increase the ability of the nose to warm and humidify air

BACKGROUND

We have previously shown that subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis out of season had a reduced ability to warm and humidify air compared with normal subjects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate whether allergic reactions induced by either seasonal exposure or nasal challenge with antigen would decrease the capacity of the nose to condition cold, dry air.

METHODS

We performed two prospective studies comparing the effects of allergic inflammation, induced by either seasonal exposure or nasal challenge with antigen, on nasal conditioning capacity (NCC). The total water gradient (WG) across the nose was used to represent the NCC. In the first study, the NCC was measured and compared before and during the allergy season in 10 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis. In the second study, 20 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis were recruited outside of the allergy season. NCC was measured and compared before and 24 hours after challenge with antigen.

RESULTS

In the first study, seasonal allergic subjects in season showed a significant increase in NCC when compared with their preseason baseline (total WG in season: 2050 +/- 138 mg vs total WG preseason: 1524 +/- 100 mg; P <.01). In the second study, antigen challenge led to early-phase and late-phase responses. There was a statistically significant increase in NCC 24 hours after antigen challenge compared with that before antigen challenge (total WG after antigen challenge: 1938 +/- 101 mg vs total WG before antigen challenge: 1648 +/- 84 mg; P =.01).

CONCLUSION

Allergic reactions induced by either seasonal exposure or antigen challenge increase the ability of the nose to condition inspired air. We speculate that allergic inflammation increases this ability by changing the perimeter of the nasal cavity.

Ipratropium bromide increases the ability of the nose to warm and humidify air

We have developed a method for measuring the temperature and relative humidity of air prior to and after nasal conditioning and used it to study the effect of treatment with ipratropium bromide on the ability of the nose to condition cold, dry air. We performed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover studies and an open study in nonallergic subjects. The subjects were treated with ipratropium bromide (84 microgram) or normal saline solution sprayed into the nasal cavity 15 min before the measurement of nasal conditioning capacity. Cold, dry air was delivered to the nose via a nasal mask, and the temperature and humidity of air were measured before entering and after exiting the nasal cavity. The total water gradient across the nose was calculated and represents nasal conditioning capacity. Ipratropium bromide treatment significantly increased nasal conditioning capacity when compared with saline. Ipratropium bromide led to less reduction in the cold, dry air-induced decrease in the nasal volume (p < 0.05) without affecting the decrease in nasal surface temperature during cold, dry air exposure (p = 0.3). Our data show that ipratropium bromide increases the ability of the nose to condition cold, dry air. Thus, treating rhinitis with ipratropium bromide should not increase the burden for inspired air conditioning on the conducting pulmonary airways.

Comparison of the response to histamine challenge of the nose and the maxillary sinus: effect of loratadine

To study the response of the maxillary sinus to histamine provocation, we performed a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial during which nonallergic subjects without symptoms of rhinitis (n = 25) received either 10 mg loratadine or placebo once daily for a week and then underwent nasal challenge with histamine (3, 10, and 30 mg/ml) followed, 24 h later, by a maxillary sinus challenge while still receiving the medication. Nasal challenge with histamine led to significant increases in vascular permeability, reflex nasal secretions, sneezing, and other nasal symptoms. Sinus challenge resulted in significant increases in vascular permeability within the sinus cavity (P < 0.01) and some nasal symptoms but no significant change in reflex nasal secretions. The response of the sinus mucosa to histamine was lower in magnitude than that of the nose. Treatment with loratadine resulted in a significant inhibition of the histamine-induced changes in both nasal and sinus cavities. Our data suggest the lack of a sinonasal reflex response to histamine provocation of the maxillary sinus of nonallergic individuals.