Topical ocular levocabastine reduces ICAM-1 expression on epithelial cells both in vivo and in vitro

Emerging drugs for allergic conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a very common disease, especially in association with allergic rhinitis but may also occur in isolated presentation. The treatment of AC has long been based on antihistamines, cromones and topical corticosteroids, but none of these drugs completely abolishes the clinical expression of AC.

AREAS COVERED

The development of new drugs for AC is analyzed highlighting the recent insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease. The major aim of development of drugs for AC is to have agents able to prevent the inflammatory effects of the interaction between the allergen and the specific IgE antibodies on mast cell surface. This may be obtained by blocking the effects of histamine (the main mediator of early allergic response) by H1-receptor antagonists, inhibiting the release of soluble factors able to recruit inflammatory cells (that sustain prolonged inflammation) by mast-cell stabilizers, inhibiting the effects of single mediators, inducing tolerance to the allergen by specific immunotherapy or even acting on factors related to activation and differentiation of T lymphocytes such as the toll-like receptors.

EXPERT OPINION

AC is an underestimated disease for which there is a search of more effective treatments. The availability of the drugs under current evaluation will allow more refined therapeutic strategies to apply according to the characteristics and the clinical severity of AC.

Histamine, histamine receptors and antihistamines: new concepts

Drugs with antihistamine action are the most commonly prescribed medication in daily dermatologic practice, both to adults and children. This article addresses new concepts of the role of histamine receptors (H1 receptors) and discusses the anti-inflammatory effects of these drugs. Second generation antihistamines differs from first generation because of their high specificity and affinity for peripheral H1-receptors. Second generation antihistamines are also less likely to produce sedation because they have less effect on the central nervous system. Although the efficacy of the various H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic patients is similar, even when comparing first- and second-generation drugs, these drugs are still very different in terms of their chemical structure, pharmacology and toxic properties. Consequently, knowledge of their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics is essential for a better medical care, especially that offered to pregnant women, children, the elderly, and patients with comorbidities.

Contribution of alpha4beta1 integrin to the antiallergic effect of levocabastine

Levocabastine is an antiallergic drug acting as a histamine H1-receptor antagonist. In allergic conjunctivitis (AC), it may also antagonize up-regulation of the intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) expressed on epithelial conjunctival cells. However, little is known about its effects on eosinophils, important effector cells in AC. The adhesion molecule integrin alpha(4)beta(1) is expressed in eosinophils; it interacts with the vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) and fibronectin (FN) in vascular endothelial cells and contributes to eosinophil activation and infiltration in AC. This study provides evidence that in a scintillation proximity assay levocabastine (IC(50) 406 microM), but not the first-generation antihistamine chlorpheniramine, displaced (125)I-FN binding to human integrin alpha(4)beta(1) and, in flow cytometry analysis, levocabastine antagonized the binding of a primary antibody to integrin alpha(4) expressed on the Jurkat cell surface. Levocabastine, but not chlorpheniramine, binds the alpha(4)beta(1) integrin and prevents eosinophil adhesion to VCAM-1, FN or human umbilical vascular endothelial cells (HUVEC) in vitro. Similarly, levocabastine affects alpha(L)beta(2)/ICAM-1-mediated adhesion of Jurkat cells. In a model of AC levocabastine eye drops reduced the clinical aspects of the late-phase reaction and the conjunctival expression of alpha(4)beta(1) integrin by reducing infiltrated eosinophils. We propose that blockade of integrin-mediated cell adhesion might be a target of the antiallergic action of levocabastine and may play a role in preventing eosinophil adhesion and infiltration in AC.

Pharmacotherapy of allergic eye disease

Allergic eye disease is a term that refers to a number of disease processes that affect about one-fifth of the world's population. Although the more advanced forms of the disease can be sight threatening, the most disabling effects are due to the clinical manifestations, and hence quality of life, with some patients having seasonal exacerbations of their symptoms, whereas others have symptoms that are present throughout the year. Recent increased understanding of the cellular and mediator mechanisms that are involved in the various disease manifestations has greatly facilitated the development of more effective treatment options. Newer topical medications are being used that have multiple actions, such as an antihistaminic effect coupled with mast-cell stabilisation, and which require reduced daily dosing due to their longer duration of action. With greater research into newer therapies and more effective modes of delivery, improved healthcare outcomes with a lower economic burden will be achieved for patients with allergic eye disease.

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.

Comparative study of topical anti-allergic eye drops on human conjunctiva-derived cells: responses to histamine and IFNγ and toxicological profiles

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to compare toxic effects and responses to histamine and IFN gamma associated with the use of some widely used anti-allergic eye drops commercially available today.

METHODS

For dynamic studies, the Wong-Kilbourne cell line was stimulated for 24 h with histamine or IFN gamma in the presence or absence of anti-allergic eye drops. Supernatants of histamine-stimulated cells were evaluated for the production of IL-6 and IL-8 by ELISA, while the expression of ICAM-1 was evaluated by flow cytometry on IFN gamma-stimulated cells. Toxicological assays were performed using cold light cytofluorometry: viability and apoptosis as well as reactive oxygen species (ROS) and O2(.)- production were assessed using neutral red, Hoechst/propidium iodide, H(2)-DCFDA and hydroethidine tests, respectively.

RESULTS

Antihistamines reduced IL-6 release and presented dose-dependent inhibitory effects on IL-8 production. None of the eye drops decreased the basal or IFN gamma-stimulated expression of ICAM-1. Conversely, eye drops preserved with benzalkonium chloride (BAC) induced even higher ICAM-1 expression levels on IFN gamma-stimulated cells than did IFN gamma alone, whereas unpreserved drugs had no effect. Toxicological assays confirmed the pivotal role of BAC in proportionally reducing cell viability while increasing apoptosis and oxidative stress.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of topical ocular anti-H(1) drugs to significantly reduce the production of IL-6 and IL-8 argues that they may help treat the inflammatory processes occurring in allergic ocular surface disorders. Nevertheless, preserved ophthalmic formulations may enhance epithelial conjunctival expression of ICAM-1 in the presence of a low inflammatory stimulus, such as IFN gamma, and displayed toxic as well as pro-oxidative effects on these cells. Therefore, BAC used as preservative might in part interfere with the potential anti-inflammatory properties of the active compound by modulating the immuno-inflammatory response of epithelial conjunctival cells.

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.

Effects of fexofenadine and other antihistamines on components of the allergic response

Intercellular adhesion molecules (ICAMs), in particular ICAM-1, appear to play a crucial role in the recruitment and migration of inflammatory cells to the site of an allergic reaction. Glucocorticoids and allergen-specific immunotherapy have been shown to exert effects on selected components of this system, both in vitro and in vivo, but further research is required to better understand the effects of these therapies. Nasal and conjunctival challenge models (including natural and experimental allergen exposure) represent useful and safe tools for studying the activity of antiallergy drugs in vivo. These tests allow the investigation of a wide variety of parameters including inflammatory infiltrate, ICAM-1 expression, and changes in the concentration of soluble inflammatory mediators. With these tools, anti-inflammatory activity related to the modulation of epithelial cell adhesion molecules has been demonstrated in vivo for several H(1)-receptor antagonists (azelastine, cetirizine, loratadine, levocabastine, oxatomide, and terfenadine). Fexofenadine is a nonsedating, long-acting antihistamine with highly selective H(1)-receptor antagonist activity and a particularly favorable safety profile. In addition, fexofenadine has proven anti-inflammatory activity and has been shown to inhibit a number of mediators at clinically relevant concentrations, including in vitro inhibition of ICAM-1 expression on conjunctival and nasal epithelial cells.

Topical azelastine in perennial allergic conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE

Azelastine is a selective H(1)-receptor antagonist that inhibits histamine release and interferes with activation of several other mediators of allergic inflammation. Together with demonstrated efficacy in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, azelastine indicated a therapeutic potential for perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC). The present study aimed to evaluate azelastine eye drops in patients with PAC compared to placebo.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multinational trial in 22 centres randomised 139 patients to twice-daily treatment for 6 weeks with masked 0.05% azelastine eye drops, matching masked placebo, or open-label levocabastine. Randomisation required a sum itching and conjunctival redness score of at least 3 (0-6 scale) after 1 week of placebo. The change in sum score was evaluated during treatment.

RESULTS

Azelastine significantly improved itching and conjunctival redness compared to placebo (p < 0.001) with global tolerability that was not substantially different from placebo. On day 7, the mean symptoms sum score improved with azelastine by 1.9 +/- 1.1 and with levocabastine by 1.5 +/- 1.2 compared to placebo (0.6 +/- 1.1) from baseline values of 3.7-3.8. The sum scores continued to improve up to day 42. Daily patient logs confirmed the clinically assessed scores. Most frequent adverse events following azelastine were bitter taste and application site reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical azelastine progressively improved itching and conjunctival redness in PAC patients compared to placebo and was at least as effective as levocabastine. Rapid relief is consistent with H(1)-receptor antagonist action, while continued improvement up to 6 weeks may be consistent with mechanisms involving other mediators of allergic inflammation.

Update on ocular allergy treatment

Allergy affects > 15% of the world population with a higher prevalence of 30% in westernised industrialised countries, such as the US. Allergy commonly affects various target organs including the eyes, nose, sinuses, ears, lungs and skin. However, the ocular component may be the most common and initially the most prominent disabling feature. Some patients are affected for only a few weeks to months while others have symptoms that last throughout the year. The associated healthcare costs related to allergic conjunctivitis has been commonly nestled with allergic rhinitis and has been reported to be as high as US$5.9 billion in the US, with 25% (US$1.5 billion) of it related to medication use. The expenditures related to ocular prescription medication has only recently risen in the past decade from US$6 million in early 1990s to > US$200 million in the new millennium with a projected continuous expansion of 25% per year. This appears to be due to improved prescription medications and their clear benefit over the less efficacious over-the-counter products. The actual cost of the medications and their relative price increases over the past year have ranged from 0 - 49% with an average cost of < US$ day. The newer topical medications (multiple acting agents) are focusing on multiple actions that include an antihistaminic effect to provide an immediate relief and additional delayed effects to act on the mediators of the late phase reaction without steroid side effects (glaucoma, cataracts). The paradigm for the treatment of ocular allergy ranges from primary measures (avoidance measures, cold compresses and lubrication), to secondary measures (various combination of topical agents) and tertiary measures that would include topical steroids and immunotherapy. The increased interest in advancing ocular treatment will lead to the development of additional therapies, novel pharmacokinetic delivery systems and, thus, improved healthcare outcomes for patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

H1-antihistamines: inverse agonism, anti-inflammatory actions and cardiac effects

This review addresses novel concepts of histamine H1-receptor function and attempts to relate them to the anti-inflammatory effects of H1-antihistamines. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms underlying the cardiotoxic effects of H1-antihistamines are discussed. H1-receptors are G-protein-coupled-receptors (GPCRs), the inactive and active conformations of which coexist in equilibrium. The degree receptor activation in the absence of histamine is its 'constitutive activity'. In this two-state model, histamine acts as an agonist by combining with and stabilizing the activated conformation of the H1-receptor to shift the equilibrium towards the activated state. Drugs classified previously as antagonists act as either inverse agonists or neutral antagonists. Inverse agonists combine with and stabilize the inactive conformation of the receptor to shift the equilibrium towards the inactive state. Thus, they may down-regulate constitutive receptor activity, even in the absence of histamine. Neutral antagonists combine equally with both conformations of the receptor, do not affect basal receptor activity but do interfere with agonist binding. All H1-antihistamines examined to date are inverse agonists. As the term 'H1-receptor antagonists' is obviously erroneous, we suggest that it be replaced by 'H1-antihistamines'. The observations that H1-receptors modulate NF-kappaB activation and that there are complex interactions between GPCRs, has allowed us to postulate receptor dependent-mechanisms for some anti-inflammatory effects of H1-antihistamines, e.g. inhibition of ICAM-1 expression and the effects of bradykinin. Finally, the finding that blockade of HERG1 K+ channels is the mechanism by which some H1-antihistamines may cause cardiac arrhythmias has allowed the development of preclinical tests to predict such activity.

Nedocromil sodium and levocabastine reduce the symptoms of conjunctival allergen challenge by different mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Nedocromil sodium and levocabastine are widely used for the treatment of ocular allergy, but their mechanisms of action are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the efficacy and mechanisms of action of nedocromil sodium and levocabastine in reducing conjunctival symptoms after ocular allergen challenge.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 48 subjects were randomized to 3 groups to receive nedocromil sodium (2%), levocabastine (0.05%), or placebo eye drops twice daily for 2 weeks before ocular challenge with 10 microL of ryegrass extract. Symptoms and tear histamine and PGD(2) concentrations were determined before challenge and at 10, 20, 30, 60, 180, and 360 minutes after challenge. Bulbar biopsy specimens were taken at 6 and 24 hours after challenge to assess conjunctival inflammatory cell numbers, adhesion molecule expression, and mast cell-associated IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-13, and TNF-alpha levels.

RESULTS

Both drugs significantly reduced total symptom scores (P <.05) at all times after challenge compared with placebo. Itching, hyperemia, and lacrimation were most affected. Nedocromil sodium treatment reduced tear concentrations of histamine (by 77%) and PGD(2) (by 70%) at 30 minutes after challenge (both P <.05). In biopsy specimens nedocromil sodium reduced the number of 3H4-positive mast cells (purportedly the secreted form of IL-4) by 49% at 6 hours and 59% at 24 hours (both P <.05). Levocabastine reduced intercellular adhesion molecule 1 expression by 52% at 6 hours and 45% at 24 hours (both P <.05).

CONCLUSION

Nedocromil sodium and levocabastine both reduced the conjunctival symptoms after ocular allergen challenge but appeared to work by different mechanisms. Nedocromil sodium reduced mast cell function, whereas levocabastine appeared to have primarily antihistaminic actions, although it also reduced the expression of intercellular adhesion molecule 1.

Ocular allergy: causes and therapeutic options

Ocular allergic eye conditions are among the most common anterior eye problems encountered in optometric practice. There are six common forms of ocular allergy: seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, perennial allergic conjunctivitis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, contact lens associated papillary conjunctivitis and contact ocular allergy. Here, we review the current understanding of the pathophysiology underlying ocular allergic conditions and describe the different causes and forms of allergic eye disease and different treatment options.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of treatment with fluticasone propionate and levocabastine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. FLNCO2 Italian Study Group

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) is a topically active glucocorticoid which has been successfully used for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Topical levocabastine is a highly selective H1 antagonist which has been proposed as an alternative treatment of SAR. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of two topical nasal treatments, FPANS and levocabastine, in the treatment of SAR. Additionally, the effect of treatments on nasal inflammation was examined during natural pollen exposure. A group of 288 adolescent and adult patients with at least a 2-year history of SAR to seasonal pollens participated in a multicenter, doubleblind, double-dummy, and placebo-controlled study. Patients were treated with either FPANS 200 microg, once daily (n = 97), or topical levocabastine, 200 microg, given twice daily (n = 96), or matched placebo (n = 95) for a period of 6 weeks, starting from the expected beginning of the pollen season. Clinically relevant pollens included Parietaria, olive, and grass. Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on nasal cytology of nasal lavage. Nasal lavage was performed immediately before, during, and at the end of treatment in 39 patients. FPANS significantly increased the percentage of symptom-free days for nasal obstruction on waking and during the day, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching. FPANS provided a better control for night and day nasal obstruction (P<0.02 and P<0.01) and rhinorrhea (P<0.01) than levocabas tine. In addition, fewer patients treated with FPANS used rescue medication (P<0.025). The percentage of eosinophils in nasal lavage was reduced only during treatment with FPANS. The results of this study indicate that FPANS 200 microg, once daily, provides a better clinical effect than levocabastine 200 microg, twice daily, in patients with SAR. Unlike levocabastine, FPANS significantly attenuates nasal eosinophilia during pollen exposure, a feature which may explain its therapeutic efficacy.

Effects of H1 antihistamines on adhesion molecules: a possible rationale for long-term treatment

Our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the allergic reaction has increased rapidly and has revealed a complex network of cells, mediators and cytokines. The intercellular adhesion system (and the ICAM-1 molecule in particular) appeared to play a pivotal role in the accumulation of inflammatory cells at the site of allergic reaction. The new antihistamines have been demonstrated to be capable of affecting several phenomena of the allergic inflammation, including mediator release, cellular activation and adhesion molecule expression. Taking into consideration the central role of adhesion molecules, the modulation of their expression may represent an important therapeutic target. The nasal and the conjunctival challenges represent two useful models for the in vivo study of the antiallergic activity of drugs, as they allow investigation of a wide variety of parameters: inflammatory infiltrate, ICAM-1 expression, concentration of soluble mediators.

Terfenadine and fexofenadine reduce in vitro ICAM-1 expression on human continuous cell lines

BACKGROUND

Epithelial cells and fibroblasts play an important role in allergic inflammation. Modulation of surface expression of adhesion molecules on epithelial cells by antiallergic drugs has been shown by both in vivo and in vitro studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect exerted by terfenadine and fexofenadine on adhesion molecules expression (CD54/ICAM-1 and CD29) of a human continuously cultured conjunctival epithelial cell line (WK) and a fibroblast cell line (HEL).

METHODS

By means of flow cytometry analysis, we evaluated ICAM-1 and CD29 expression by WK and HEL epithelial cells in basal condition (at baseline) or after IFN gamma or TNF alpha stimulation in the presence or in the absence of terfenadine and fexofenadine. We also performed immunoenzymatic assays in order to evaluate soluble ICAM-1 released by WK cells and procollagen type I and III and IL6 released by HEL cells.

RESULTS

Terfenadine and fexofenadine significantly reduced ICAM-1 basal expression on WK cells at the concentration of 1 microg/mL and 50 microg/mL, respectively. In addition, both terfenadine and fexofenadine were able to decrease soluble ICAM-1 levels in IFN gamma-stimulated WK cells. On HEL fibroblasts, fexofenadine only was able to inhibit ICAM-1 upregulation induced by IFN gamma. Concerning the release of fibroblast products, we observed a dose-dependent decrease of spontaneous IL6 release only in the presence of fexofenadine.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that terfenadine and fexofenadine exert a biologic effect directly on epithelial cells and fibroblasts reducing ICAM-1 expression and partially reducing soluble ICAM-1 release.