Azelastine eye drops reduce and prevent allergic conjunctival reaction and exert anti-allergic activity

Allergic Conjunctivitis Management: Update on Ophthalmic Solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review, is to present an updated revision of topical management of SAC and PAC, based on the available scientific evidence and focused on the impact of ophthalmic solution formulations on eye surface.

RECENT FINDINGS

Physicians treating ocular allergy should be aware of tear film and tear film disruption in SAC and PAC, and how eye drop composition and additives affect the physiology of the allergic eye. Seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis (SAC and PAC) are the most frequent causes of ocular allergy (OA), and both conditions are underdiagnosed and undertreated. SAC and PAC are immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. The additional tear film disruption caused by the release of inflammatory mediators increases and exacerbates the impact of signs and symptoms and may trigger damage of the ocular surface. Comorbidities are frequent, and dry eye disease in particular must be considered. Clinical guidelines for the management of SAC and PAC recommend topical therapy with antihistamines, mast cells stabilizers or dualaction agents as first-line treatment, but care should be taken, as many medications contain other compounds that may contribute to ocular surface damage.

Updates in the diagnosis and practical management of allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a widespread disease that can be associated with other conditions, including conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on the history and documentation of sensitization, such as the production of allergen-specific IgE, preferably using molecular diagnostics. Treatments are based on patient education, non-pharmacological and pharmacological remedies, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), and surgery. Symptomatic treatments mainly concern intranasal/oral antihistamines and/or nasal corticosteroids.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses current and emerging management strategies for AR, covering pharmacological and non-pharmacological remedies, AIT, and biologics in selected cases with associated severe asthma. However, AIT presently remains the unique causal treatment for AR.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of allergic rhinitis could include new strategies. In this regard, particular interest should be considered in the fixed association between intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids, probiotics and other natural substances, and new formulations (tablets) of AIT.

Generation of high affinity ICAM-1-specific nanobodies and evaluation of their suitability for allergy treatment

The nasal cavity is an important site of allergen entry. Hence, it represents an organ where trans-epithelial allergen penetration and subsequent IgE-mediated allergic inflammation can potentially be inhibited. Intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) is highly expressed on the surface of respiratory epithelial cells in allergic patients. It was identified as a promising target to immobilize antibody conjugates bispecific for ICAM-1 and allergens and thereby block allergen entry. We have previously characterized a nanobody specific for the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and here we report the generation and characterization of ICAM-1-specific nanobodies. Nanobodies were obtained from a camel immunized with ICAM-1 and a high affinity binder was selected after phage display (Nb44). Nb44 was expressed as recombinant protein containing HA- and His-tags in Escherichia coli (E.coli) and purified via affinity chromatography. SDS-PAGE and Western blot revealed a single band at approximately 20 kDa. Nb44 bound to recombinant ICAM-1 in ELISA, and to ICAM-1 expressed on the human bronchial epithelial cell line 16HBE14o- as determined by flow cytometry. Experiments conducted at 4°C and at 37°C, to mimic physiological conditions, yielded similar percentages (97.2 ± 1.2% and 96.7 ± 1.5% out of total live cells). To confirm and visualize binding, we performed immunofluorescence microscopy. While Texas Red Dextran was rapidly internalized Nb44 remained localized on the cell surface. Additionally, we determined the strength of Nb44 and ICAM-1 interaction using surface plasmon resonance (SPR). Nb44 bound ICAM-1 with high affinity (10-10 M) and had slow off-rates (10-4 s-1). In conclusion, our results showed that the selected ICAM-1-specific nanobody bound ICAM-1 with high affinity and was not internalized. Thus, it could be further used to engineer heterodimers with allergen-specific nanobodies in order to develop topical treatments of pollen allergy.

Turbinate Hypertrophy, Allergic Rhinitis, and Otitis Media

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Otitis media (OM) is a disease with high prevalence in infancy; it has a substantial burden on healthcare resources, and a relevant impact on the quality of life of families. The link between OM and allergic rhinitis (AR) is still debated. However, there is agreement about the relevance of type 2 inflammation on turbinate hypertrophy (TH) generation. There is also evidence that TH is associated with middle ear dysventilation: a pathogenic factor promoting OM. Therefore, a vicious circle among AR, TH, and OM may occur.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are some recent studies exploring this issue through different approaches, such as epidemiological, mechanistic, and therapeutic. Identifying allergy as a pathogenic factor for OM could improve the management of OM patients. Vice versa, suspecting AR in OM patients, could be reasonable in selected patients. The current narrative review provides an overview of the evidence concerning the potential role of AR, and associated TH, in OM patients.

Turbinate Hypertrophy, Allergic Rhinitis, and Otitis Media

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Otitis media (OM) is a disease with high prevalence in infancy; it has a substantial burden on healthcare resources and a relevant impact on the quality of life of families. The link between OM and allergic rhinitis (AR) is still debated. However, there is agreement about the relevance of type 2 inflammation on turbinate hypertrophy (TH) generation. There is also evidence that TH is associated with middle ear dysventilation: a pathogenic factor promoting OM. Therefore, a vicious circle among AR, TH, and OM may occur.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are some recent studies exploring this issue through different approaches, such as epidemiological, mechanistic, and therapeutic. Identifying allergy as a pathogenic factor for OM could improve the management of OM patients. Vice versa, suspecting AR in OM patients could be reasonable in selected patients. The current narrative review provides an overview of the evidence concerning the potential role of AR, and associated TH, in OM patients.

Antihistamines in children and adolescents: A practical update

Histamine is a chemical mediator, released predominantly by tissue mast cells, circulating basophils, and neurons, which are activated in response to various immunological and non-immunological stimuli. Histamine has to bind to specific receptors to exert its physiological and pathophysiological functions. Endogenous histamine is the main mediator of the immediate allergic response, which moreover, performs other multiple functions, including regulation of gastric secretion, neurotransmission in the central nervous system, and immunomodulatory activity. The involvement of histamine in various disorders and the importance of receptors in the clinical features have relevant implications in clinical practice. Anti-H1 antihistamines contrast the histamine-dependent effects, mainly concerning nasal symptoms and cutaneous itching and wheal. Antihistamines are among the most prescribed drugs in pediatric care. This review updates the practical use of antihistamines in children and adolescents.

Antihistamines and itch

Histamine is one of the best-characterized pruritogens in humans. It is known to play a role in pruritus associated with urticaria as well as ocular and nasal allergic reactions. Histamine mediates its effect via four receptors. Antihistamines that block the activation of the histamine H₁receptor, H₁R, have been shown to be effective therapeutics for the treatment of pruritus associated with urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. However, their efficacy in other pruritic diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is limited. The other histamine receptors may also play a role in pruritus, with the exception of the histamine H₂receptor, H₂R. Preclinical evidence indicates that local antagonism of the histamine H₃receptor, H₃R, can induce scratching perhaps via blocking inhibitory neuronal signals. The histamine H₄receptor, H₄R, has received a significant amount of attention as to its role in mediating pruritic signals. Indeed, it has now been shown that a selective H₄R antagonist can inhibit histamine-induced itch in humans. This clinical result, in conjunction with efficacy in various preclinical pruritus models, points to the therapeutic potential of H₄R antagonists for the treatment of pruritus not controlled by antihistamines that target the H₁R.

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.

Simultaneous determination of azelastine and its major metabolite desmethylazelastine in human plasma using high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

A selective and sensitive high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric method was developed for the analysis of azelastine and its major metabolite, desmethylazelastine, in human plasma. Azelastine-(13)C, d(3) was used as internal standard. Azelastine, desmethylazelastine and the internal standard were extracted by a liquid-liquid extraction method and separation was performed under isocratic chromatographic condition. An abnormal signal loss issue for desmethylazelastine during method development was investigated and resolved. The developed method was precise and reproducible as shown by good intraday assay and interday assay precision (CV%≤ 12.8%). The calibration curve was linear over a range of 10.0/10.0-1000/200 pg/mL for azelastine/desmethylazelastine. The method was successfully applied to a pilot bioequivalence study subsequently.

A review of non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic eye disease encompasses a group of hypersensitivity disorders which primarily affect the conjunctiva and its prevalence is increasing. It is estimated to affect 8% of patients attending optometric practice but is poorly managed and rarely involves ophthalmic assessment. Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is the most common form of allergic eye disease (90%), followed by perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC; 5%). Both are type 1 IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions where mast cells play an important role in pathophysiology. The signs and symptoms are similar but SAC occurs periodically whereas PAC occurs year round. Despite being a relatively mild condition, the effects on the quality of life can be profound and therefore they demand attention. Primary management of SAC and PAC involves avoidance strategies depending on the responsible allergen(s) to prevent the hypersensitivity reaction. Cooled tear supplements and cold compresses may help bring relief. Pharmacological agents may become necessary as it is not possible to completely avoid the allergen(s). There are a wide range of anti-allergic medications available, such as mast cell stabilisers, antihistamines and dual-action agents. Severe cases refractory to conventional treatment require anti-inflammatories, immunomodulators or immunotherapy. Additional qualifications are required to gain access to these medications, but entry-level optometrists must offer advice and supportive therapy. Based on current evidence, the efficacy of anti-allergic medications appears equivocal so prescribing should relate to patient preference, dosing and cost. More studies with standardised methodologies are necessary elicit the most effective anti-allergic medications but those with dual-actions are likely to be first line agents.

Pharmacology of ocular allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the pharmacology of current drug development directed towards ocular allergy. Increased worldwide prevalence of ocular allergy has stimulated expansion of management strategies towards physiologic and immunologic drug targets.

RECENT FINDINGS

Present drug targets are located in the conjunctival mucosal surface at the initial site of allergen exposure. Pharmacologic intervention attends to early and late phase reactions. Targets generating a response include mast cells, IgE, released preformed mediator histamine, and newly formed mediators, such as prostaglandins, leukotrienes and cytokines. Methods to simulate allergy and measure efficacy of drugs are the conjunctival allergen challenge and the conjunctival provocation test. Pharmacologic outcome is measured via cytologic biomarkers and clinical signs/symptoms of redness, itching, lid swelling and chemosis. Endpoint instruments such as the Ocular Allergy Index and Eye Allergy Patient Impact Questionnaire have emerged from the field of pharmacoeconomics.

SUMMARY

Important pharmacologic properties of targets have been revealed. First, histamine is more specifically antagonized by second generation antihistamines. Second, newly formed mediators and downstream responders (prostaglandins, leukotrienes, interleukins, intercellular adhesion molecule 1, tumor necrosis factor, vascular cell adhesion molecule, eosinophils and neutrophils) are more selectively antagonized by dual/multiple-action agents.

Emerging drugs for ocular allergy

Ocular allergy is a common condition that usually affects the conjunctiva of the eye and is, therefore, often referred to as allergic conjunctivitis. The severity of the disease can range from mild itching and redness, as seen in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, to the more severe, sight-threatening forms such as vernal and atopic keratoconjunctivitis. The central mechanism in the pathogenesis of these diseases is IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation and activation of T lymphocytes, eosinophils and conjunctival structural cells. The pharmacotherapy of allergic conjunctivitis consists of several classes of drugs: antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, dual-acting agents and corticosteroids. None of the available drugs completely abolishes the development of ocular allergy. For this reason, new topical antiallergic/anti-inflammatory agents are currently and continually under clinical trials. This review provides a background to ocular allergic diseases, the medical need for therapy and current and potential new treatments.

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 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.

Rapid anti-inflammatory action of azelastine eyedrops for ongoing allergic reactions

BACKGROUND

Some second-generation antihistamines have anti-inflammatory activities, but the clinical relevance of this property is still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of azelastine when administered during the early-phase reaction.

METHODS

This investigation was designed as a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study. Clinical and inflammatory events were evaluated after a single dose of azelastine eyedrops or placebo was administered 30 minutes after an allergen-specific conjunctival challenge. Twenty outpatients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis attributable to Parietaria judaica were enrolled in the study outside the pollen season. Patients were evaluated at baseline, after allergen challenge (at 30 minutes), and after administration of azelastine (at 30 minutes and at 6 hours). The following variables were evaluated: hyperemia, lacrimation, itching, eyelid swelling, number of inflammatory cells (neutrophils, eosinophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes), and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression on conjunctival epithelial cells.

RESULTS

Azelastine, in comparison to placebo, significantly reduced symptom scores, number of inflammatory cells, and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression during the early- and late-phase reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of azelastine to reduce symptoms and inflammation during an ongoing allergic reaction can be considered concrete and convincing proof of a clinically relevant anti-inflammatory activity.

Efficacy and safety of topical azelastine compared with topical mitomycin C in patients with allergic conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of topical azelastine with topical mitomycin C (MMC) in patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients (29 male, 29 female; 34 in the age range of 6 to 65 years) with allergic conjunctivitis were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive topical azelastine 0.02% (n = 31) or topical MMC (0.2 mg/10 mL) (n = 31) four times daily for 3 months. Follow-up examinations were done at 2 weeks to examine side effects of the medications and again at 4 weeks to assess the outcome of treatment. The eyes were examined for relief of symptoms, cure of signs, and the appearance of side effects with use of these drugs.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients in this study was 34.8 +/- 17.3 years. The age of patients in the MMC group was significantly higher than patients in the azelastine group (mean +/- SD, 25.2 +/- 13.5 years). More patients in the MMC group had relief of symptoms like redness [25 (80.7%) in the MMC group versus 19 (55.9%) in the azelastine group; p= 0.033], photophobia [11 (35.5%) in the MMC group versus six (17.7%) in the azelastine group; not significant], discharge [17 (54.8%) in the MMC group versus 11 (32.3%) in the azelastine group; not significant], and foreign body sensation [21 (67.7%) in the MMC group versus 16 (47.1%) in the azelastine group; not significant], while more patients in the azelastine group had relief of lacrimation [14 (41.2%) in the azelastine group versus 10 (32.3%) in the MMC group; not significant] and pain [12 (35.3%) in the azelastine group versus eight (25.8%) in the MMC group; not significant]. The MMC group also showed a greater decrease in follicles [31 (100.0%) in the MMC group versus six (17.7%) in the azelastine group; p= 0.0001] and papillae [29 (93.6%) in the MMC group versus four (11.8%) in the azelastine group; p= 0.0001]. Both drugs were found to be equally effective in relieving itching [18 (58.1%) in the MMC group versus 18 (52.9%) in the azelastine group; not significant]. In the MMC group, 27 (87.1%) patients had conjunctival hyperemia, 28 (90.3%) patients had episcleritis, and 29 (93.6%) patients had irritation. The use of topical azelastine did not cause any adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Though this was a short-term study, we found topical MMC to be more effective than topical azelastine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis both in terms of relief of symptoms and resolution of signs. The use of topical MMC in low doses does not cause any significant adverse effect.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of topically administered azelastine, sodium cromoglycate and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhino-conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

Azelastine (AZE) in a novel, eye drop, formulation, was compared with topically applied sodium cromoglycate (SCG) and placebo (PLA) in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhino-conjunctivitis in a multicentre, parallel group study.

RESEARCH DESIGN

144 subjects ranging in age from 16 to 65 years participated. All had at least a 2-year history of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and were symptomatic at the time of inclusion. Medications were administered topically either twice daily (AZE/PLA) or four times daily (SCG) over a 2-week treatment period. Method and outcome measures: Azelastine and placebo were compared double-blind; the comparison versus SCG was carried out in an open manner. Itching, redness, flow of tears, eyelid swelling, foreign-body sensation, photophobia, soreness and discharge were scored on a 4-point severity scale.

RESULTS

Results for the decrease of main conjunctivitis symptoms (itching, tearing and conjunctival redness) showed a marked effect for both active treatments on day 3 with a sustained improvement on days 7 and 14. A clear response to treatment (an improvement of sum scores for day 3 of >/=3 points compared to baseline) occurred in 85.4% of azelastine-treated patients, 83.0% of sodium cromoglycate patients and 56.3% of placebo patients. Response rates for both active treatments were statistically superior to those for placebo (azelastine p = 0.005; sodium cromoglycate p = 0.007). Global assessment of efficacy was at least 'satisfactory' for 90.0% of azelastine patients, 81.3% of sodium cromoglycate patients and 66.3% of placebo-treated patients. The most frequent adverse effects were transient application site reactions which tended to disappear with increasing duration of treatment, and, less frequently, taste perversion.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that the therapeutic use of azelastine eye drops in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhino-conjunctivitis can be recommended.

Topical immunopharmacology of ocular allergies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the histamine-1 receptor antagonists, mast cell blockers and natural agents with such actions that can be used for the topical treatment of ocular allergies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence indicates that some histamine-1 receptor antagonists have additional actions to inhibit secretion of inflammatory mediators, especially cytokines, from ocular mast cells and other cell types. Emerging information suggests that such actions may be through regulation of intracellular calcium ion levels of NF-kappaB activation.

SUMMARY

A number of available drugs and natural non-prescription agents may have anti-histaminic and anti-inflammatory actions.

Conjunctival provocation testing: overview of recent clinical trials in ocular allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The conjunctival provocation test is a human model of ocular allergy that has been used to study the ocular response to allergenic stimuli and to evaluate antiallergic therapy. The review will discuss recent studies using the conjunctival provocation test and other models of ocular allergy, and evaluate the relative merits of different models.

RECENT FINDINGS

The conjunctival provocation test has allowed investigators to recruit large numbers of allergic individuals who, although asymptomatic, can be challenged with the conjunctival administration of allergen. Observations of the eye can be made before and after challenge, and cells and mediators may be sampled from the ocular surface. In addition, the effectiveness of antiallergic therapy can be evaluated, usually by pretreating the two eyes with different forms or doses of drug.

SUMMARY

Considerable useful information has been gained about the ocular allergic response and drug efficacy using the conjunctival provocation test and naturally occurring seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Azelastine is more potent than olopatadine n inhibiting interleukin-6 and tryptase release from human umbilical cord blood-derived cultured mast cells

BACKGROUND

Mast cells are involved in early- and late-phase reactions by releasing vasoactive molecules, proteases, and cytokines. Certain histamine-1 receptor antagonists and other antiallergic drugs seem to inhibit the release of mediators from rat and human mast cells.

OBJECTIVE

Azelastine and olopatadine are antiallergic agents present in the ophthalmic solutions azelastine hydrochloride (Optivar, Asta Medica/Muro Pharmaceuticals, Tewksbury, MA), and olopatadine hydrochloride (Patanol, Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX), respectively. We investigated the effect of these drugs on interleukin-6 (IL-6), tryptase, and histamine release from cultured human mast cells (CHMCs).

METHODS

CHMCs were grown from human umbilical cord blood-derived CD34+ cells in the presence of stem cell factor and IL-6 for 14 to 16 weeks. Sensitized CHMCs were pretreated with various concentrations of azelastine or olopatadine for 5 minutes. CHMCs were then challenged with anti-immunoglobulin E, and the released mediators were quantitated.

RESULTS

The greatest inhibition of mediator release was seen with 24 microM azelastine; this level of inhibition was matched with the use of 133 microM olopatadine. At this concentration, these drugs inhibited IL-6 release by 83% and 74%, tryptase release by 55% and 79%, and histamine release by 41% and 45%, respectively. Activated CHMCs were characterized by numerous filopodia that were inhibited by both drugs as shown by electron microscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that azelastine and olopatadine can inhibit CHMCs activation and release of IL-6, tryptase, and histamine. On an equimolar basis, azelastine was a more potent inhibitor than olopatadine.

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.

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

Second generation antihistamines are recognised as being highly effective treatments for allergy-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, consideration of the therapeutic index or the benefit/risk ratio of the H1 receptor antagonists is of paramount importance when prescribing this class of compounds as they are used to treat non-life threatening conditions. There are many second generation antihistamines available and at first examination these appear to be comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the newer antihistamines in fact represent a heterogeneous group of compounds, having markedly differing chemical structures, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution and metabolism, spectrum of antihistaminic properties, and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to the latter, there is growing awareness that some of these compounds might represent useful adjunct medications in asthma therapy. In terms of safety issues, the current second generation grouping includes compounds with proven cardiotoxic effects and others with the potential for adverse drug interactions. Moreover, some of the second generation H1 antagonists have given cause for concern regarding their potential to cause a degree of somnolence in some individuals. It can be argued, therefore, that the present second generation grouping is too large and indistinct since this was based primarily on the concept of separating the first generation sedating compounds from nonsedating H1 antagonists. Although it is too early to talk about a third generation grouping of antihistamines, future membership of such a classification could be based on a low volume of distribution coupled with a lack of sedating effects, drug interactions and cardiotoxicity.

Evaluation of the onset and duration of effect of azelastine eye drops (0.05%) versus placebo in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using an allergen challenge model

OBJECTIVE

The trial evaluated the effectiveness of the investigational antihistaminic and antiallergic compound Azelastine Eye Drops (AZE) in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis using an allergen challenge model.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, paired-eye study.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a history of allergic conjunctivitis (>/=2 years) who were asymptomatic throughout the trial, had a positive skin test (cat dander, grass, or ragweed pollen within the last year), and had a positive conjunctival reaction (score 2+ or more for itching and redness in both eyes on a 0-4 scale) during two separate conjunctival provocation tests (CPT) before randomization.

METHODS

Eighty patients underwent a 2-week screening period (visits 1 and 2) that included a CPT during visit 1 to establish the allergen threshold dose and a second confirmatory CPT performed at visit 2. Eye symptom assessments for itching (evaluated by patient) and conjunctival redness (evaluated by physician) were performed 5 and 10 minutes after CPT using a 5-point scale (from 0 = none to 4+ = severe). Qualified patients were randomized to receive one drop of AZE (0.015 mg of azelastine hydrochloride) in one eye and one drop of placebo in the other eye 20 minutes before CPT at visit 3 (onset) and 8 or 10 hours before CPT at visit 4 (duration).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Individual severity scores for itching (evaluated by patient) and conjunctival redness (evaluated by physician) for each eye at 3, 5, and 10 minutes after CPT at visits 3 and 4 using a 5-point scale (0 = none to 4+ = very severe).

RESULTS

Each of the 80 randomized patients completed the trial. Mean itching and conjunctival redness scores at visit 3 (onset) were significantly lower (P: < 0.001) in the AZE-treated eyes than in the placebo-treated eyes. At visit 4 (duration), mean itching and conjunctival redness scores (P: </= 0.003) for the 8-hour group and mean itching scores (P: </= 0.001) for the 10-hour group were significantly lower in the AZE-treated eyes than in the placebo-treated eyes. Significant differences in mean tearing and chemosis severity scores were also seen at visit 3 (onset) and visit 4 (duration) in the AZE-treated eyes when compared with the placebo-treated eyes. Treatment with AZE was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapy of experimentally induced allergic conjunctivitis with AZE was highly effective, with an onset of action seen within 3 minutes and a duration of effect of at least 8 to 10 hours.

The placebo effect

Placebos have been traditionally regarded as deceptive therapies and have not been understood in the broader context of social symbols and of interpersonal factors that surround the healing process itself. Although the power of inert substances to heal is well recognized, the placebo effect also influences the outcome of conventional therapies. The role of the placebo in modern medicine is poorly defined because of a lack of a common understanding of what the placebo effect is and because of the negative connotions associated with its use. The response rate to placebo varies by illness. The natural course of disease and patient or physician bias can be misinterpreted as a placebo response. In research, the placebo effect is therapeutic noise to be removed by placebo-controlled trials. Few studies are designed to measure the placebo response rate directly. Placebos are a reminder of how little is known about mind-body interaction. The placebo effect may be one of the most versatile and underused therapeutic tools at the disposal of physicians.

Azelastine eye-drops in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

This study was carried out to assess the efficacy of 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine eye-drops in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis of > or = 1 year's duration. A total of 151 patients received 0.025% or 0.05% azelastine eye-drops or placebo b.i.d. for 14 days according to a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-dosing design; 129 patients completed the study as planned. The three target symptoms, scored on 4-point scales, were itching, lacrimation, and redness of the eyes; responders were patients whose symptom sum score decreased by > or = 3 from a baseline score of > or = 6 by day 3. Mean scores of these and five other symptoms were recorded also on days 7 and 14, and patients kept daily diaries of the three main symptoms and swollen eyelids. Responder rates were 73% for 0.025% (P=0.115 vs placebo) and 82% for 0.05% azelastine eye-drops (P=0.011 vs placebo) and 56% for placebo. The time courses of the mean (investigators' and patients') scores for the three main symptoms reflected the dose-dependent effect of azelastine eye-drops. One patient each from the two azelastine groups and three from the placebo group withdrew because of inefficacy. Adverse drug reactions were reported by 14 and 24 patients receiving 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine eye-drops, respectively, and by eight placebo patients. These reactions were mainly slight application site reactions and taste perversion (bitter or unpleasant taste). Azelastine eye-drops are effective and well tolerated at a dose of 0.05% for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Azelastine eye drops in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis in young children

In a randomised, multicentre study, the effect of azelastine eye drops (n = 51 patients) was compared in a double-blind manner with placebo eye drops (n = 30 patients) and in an open manner with levocabastine eye drops (n = 32 patients) during a 14-day treatment period involving 113 children (aged 4 to 12 years) suffering from seasonal allergic conjunctivitis/rhinoconjunctivitis. The primary variable was the response rate defined as the number of patients showing an improvement after three days of treatment of at least three score points, from a minimum baseline score of six, in the main ocular symptoms of itching, conjunctival redness and lacrimation (each assessed on a four-point scale). Patients discontinuing due to inefficacy were regarded as non-responders. The mean response rate in the azelastine eye drops group (74%) was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than that in the placebo group (39%) and comparable with that in the levocabastine group. The response rates assessed by the patients in their diaries were very similar. Significant differences (p < 0.01) for azelastine compared with placebo were observed on days 3 and 14 in the mean sum scores for the three main symptoms and for a total of eight eye symptoms. The overall assessment of efficacy confirmed the superiority of both active treatments compared with placebo. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 23% of placebo-, 35% of azelastine- and 38% of levocabastine-treated patients. These were mainly local irritant effects. Overall tolerability was assessed as very good or good in 80%, 84% and 91% of placebo-, azelastine- and levocabastine-treated patients, respectively. Azelastine eye drops are effective and well-tolerated in children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of two concentrations of azelastine eye drops in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis

This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine eye drops twice daily administered for 14 days to patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. A total of 278 patients were recruited and 226 patients were evaluable for per protocol analysis. The target parameter was the response rate. Four eye symptoms, including the main symptom (itching) were recorded by patients in diaries and eight symptoms were assessed by physicians before and after seven and 14 days of treatment. Severity of symptoms was measured on a four-point scale. The response rates for itching (improvement of at least one score point within the first three days) according to patient assessment were 43% for placebo, 52% for 0.025% and 56% for 0.05% azelastine (NS). However, a more objective assessment of the three main eye symptoms by physicians showed a concentration-dependent improvement in response rate compared with placebo (a decrease of > or = 3 points from a baseline total score of > or = 6), which reached statistical significance for 0.05% azelastine on Day 7 (p < 0.002). In the evaluable patient population, the scores of the three main eye symptoms as well as of all eight recorded eye symptoms, as assessed by the physician, were significantly (p < 0.05) lower in the 0.05% azelastine eye drops group in comparison with the placebo group at Day 7. Inefficacy was the cause of withdrawal in five and three patients on 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine, respectively, and in six patients on placebo. Adverse drug effects, mainly a mild, transient irritation and a bitter or unpleasant taste, were reported by 14% (0.025%), 20% (0.05%) and 15% (placebo) of the patients. No serious side-effects occurred. Azelastine eye drops are effective and well tolerated at a concentration of 0.05% for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Molecular events in allergic inflammation: experimental models and possible modulation

In recent years, a complex molecular network involving cytokines kinins and adhesion molecules has been demonstrated to operate in allergic inflammation. In particular, the adhesion machinery plays a crucial role for the recruitment and locomotion of the inflammatory cells and the Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1 (ICAM-1) is a hallmark of the allergic inflammatory process. The role and possible modulation of ICAM-1 can be investigated using both eye and nose experimental models. Conjunctival and nasal epithelium are easy to study either under natural allergen exposure or after specific/aspecific provocation tests; furthermore the nasal/conjunctival challenge is well tolerated by the patients. These experimental models have allowed us to investigate in vivo the antiallergic properties of several compounds. Many of the new antihistamines, but also deflazacort and local nasal immunotherapy, were demonstrated capable of reducing both inflammatory infiltration and ICAM-1 expression on epithelia. Because of the central role of adhesion molecules in allergic inflammation, their pharmacological modulation can be regarded as a promising therapeutic approach.