Emerging drugs for ocular allergy

TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of elective medications and procedures on the ocular surface

The word "elective" refers to medications and procedures undertaken by choice or with a lower grade of prioritization. Patients usually use elective medications or undergo elective procedures to treat pathologic conditions or for cosmetic enhancement, impacting their lifestyle positively and, thus, improving their quality of life. However, those interventions can affect the homeostasis of the tear film and ocular surface. Consequently, they generate signs and symptoms that could impair the patient's quality of life. This report describes the impact of elective topical and systemic medications and procedures on the ocular surface and the underlying mechanisms. Moreover, elective procedures performed for ocular diseases, cosmetic enhancement, and non-ophthalmic interventions, such as radiotherapy and bariatric surgery, are discussed. The report also evaluates significant anatomical and biological consequences of non-urgent interventions to the ocular surface, such as neuropathic and neurotrophic keratopathies. Besides that, it provides an overview of the prophylaxis and management of pathological conditions resulting from the studied interventions and suggests areas for future research. The report also contains a systematic review investigating the quality of life among people who have undergone small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Overall, SMILE refractive surgery seems to cause more vision disturbances than LASIK in the first month post-surgery, but less dry eye symptoms in long-term follow up.

Drug Delivery for Ocular Allergy: Current Formulation Design Strategies and Future Perspectives

The incidences of ocular allergy have been growing with the increase in pollution. Because of challenges in new drug development, there have been efforts to maximize the efficacy of existing drugs through drug delivery approaches. The effectiveness of drugs in ophthalmic conditions is primarily determined by permeability across the barrier, corneal retention, and sustained release. Thus, there have been widespread efforts to optimize these parameters to enhance efficacy through novel formulations. This review aims to analyze the approaches to drug delivery systems to encourage further research to optimize effectiveness. With this objective, research on drug delivery aspects of anti-allergy therapeutics was included and analyzed based on formulation/drug delivery technique, Food and Drug Administration approval limits, residence time, compatibility, pre-clinical efficacy, and potential for translational application. Conventional eye drops have concerns such as poor residence time and ocular bioavailability. The novel formulations have the potential to improve residence and bioavailability. However, the use of preservatives and the lack of regulatory approval for polymers limit the translational application. The review may assist readers in identifying novel drug delivery strategies and their limitations for the development of effective ophthalmic formulations for the treatment of ocular allergy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Systematic approach to managing vernal keratoconjunctivitis in clinical practice: Severity grading system and a treatment algorithm

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis is an ocular allergy that is common in the pediatric age group. It is often chronic, severe, and nonresponsive to the available treatment options. Management of these children is difficult and often a dilemma for the practitioner. There is a need to simplify and standardize its management. To achieve this goal, we require a grading system to judge the severity of inflammation and an algorithm to select the appropriate medications. This article provides a simple and practically useful grading system and a stepladder algorithm for systematic treatment of these patients. Use of appropriate treatment modalities can reduce treatment and disease-related complications.

Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.

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.

Drug utilization study in ophthalmology outpatients at a tertiary care teaching hospital

In view of the advancement in drug development and availability of new ocular therapeutics in the discipline of ophthalmology, we attempted to study the drug utilization and describe the prescribing practices of ophthalmologists in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Method. A prospective, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted on patients attending Outpatient Department of Ophthalmology for curative complaints. Prescriptions of 600 patients treated were analyzed by the WHO prescribing indicators and additional indices. Results. Analysis showed that the average number of drugs per prescription was 1.49. Percentage of drugs prescribed by generic name was 2.35%. Percentage of encounters with antibiotics was 44.83%. Percentage of drugs prescribed from National Essential drug list (NEDL)/National Formulary of India (NFI) was 19.48%. Patient's knowledge of correct dosage was 93.83%. Antimicrobial agents were the most commonly prescribed drugs followed by antiallergy drugs and ocular lubricants. Fluoroquinolones accounted for 60% of the total antimicrobial drugs, of which gatifloxacin was the most frequently prescribed fluoroquinolone. Conclusion. The study indicated an awareness of polypharmacy, but showed ample scope for improvement in encouraging the ophthalmologists to prescribe by generic name and selection of essential drugs from NEDL/NFI.

Comparative evaluation of olopatadine 0.01% combined fluorometholone 0.1% treatment versus olopatadine 0.01% combined ketorolac 0.4% treatment in patients with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the therapeutic effects of low-effective steroid fluorometholone 0.1% and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory ketorolac 0.4% when concomitantly used with olopatadine 0.01% in relieving clinical signs and symptoms of acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC).

METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center study, 104 eyes of 52 patients with the diagnosis of SAC were conducted. The patients were assigned into two groups to receive either olopatadine and fluorometholone one eye and placebo in the contralateral eye or olopatadine and ketorolac one eye and placebo in the contralateral. The clinical signs (chemosis, mucus secretion, eyelid edema) and symptoms (itching, redness, tearing, burning) of the patients were evaluated by summing up the scores using a 3-point scale. Results were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test, p values less than 0.05 were defined as significant.

RESULTS

All parameters were improved less amount on the first day of the treatment in both groups, however, significant reduction in clinical signs and symptoms were seen on the 10th day compared with those receiving placebo. Fluorometholone was found superior to ketorolac in reducing redness, mucus secretion, chemosis and eyelid edema (p = 0.032 for redness, p = 0.028 for mucus secretion, p = 0.030 for chemosis, p = 0.042 for eyelid edema) and both drugs were similar in alleviating the symptoms itching, burning and tearing (p = 0.074 for itching, p = 0.064 for burning, p = 0.072 for tearing).

CONCLUSIONS

Fluorometholone was better than ketorolac in relieving redness, chemosis, mucus secretion and eyelid edema when concomitantly used with olopatadine, however, these two drugs were found equal in attenuating the symptoms itching, burning and tearing.

Topical cyclosporine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical cyclosporine versus placebo in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven qualified studies incorporating 306 eyes of 153 patients were analyzed.

METHODS

Searches of randomized controlled trials were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed the methodologic quality of individual included trials and performed meta-analyses using the random effects model if P<0.1 in the test for heterogeneity, or otherwise used the fixed effects model. We assessed scores of composite signs and symptoms, reduction in steroid eye drop use in steroid-dependent patients, and safety outcomes (i.e., stinging or burning sensation).

RESULTS

At 2 weeks of follow-up or longer, evidence suggests a statistically significant improvement in the composite signs (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to -0.62; I(2) = 71%) and symptoms (SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.16; I(2) = 80%) after topical cyclosporine treatment for allergic conjunctivitis regardless of the dosage of treatment. There was a significant reduction (mean difference, -61.16; 95% CI, -101.61 to -20.72; I(2) = 58%) in the use of steroid eye drops in patients with steroid-dependent allergic conjunctivitis. Stinging or burning sensation (odds ratio, 2.56; 95% CI, 0.19-35.06; I(2) = 73%) was common in both the cyclosporine and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests topical cyclosporine could be an effective and safe treatment method for allergic conjunctivitis. Further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and standardized outcome measurements, follow-up periods, and cyclosporine concentrations are warranted to determine the short- and long-term efficacy and safety and the minimal effective dosage of topical cyclosporine for allergic conjunctivitis.

Oral cyclosporine therapy for refractory severe vernal keratoconjunctivitis

We report the success of oral cyclosporine therapy in a patient with severe vision-threatening vernal keratoconjunctivitis. A child presented with severe allergy which was not controlled with topical steroids, cyclosporine and mast cell stabilizers. Oral steroids were required repeatedly to suppress inflammation. Child showed a dramatic improvement and stabilization with oral cyclosporine therapy. Oral cyclosporine therapy can be tried in severe vision-threatening allergy refractory to conventional therapy.

Loteprednol etabonate suspension 0.2% administered QID compared with olopatadine solution 0.1% administered BID in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel group study in Chinese patients

BACKGROUND

Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is caused by seasonal allergens and usually manifests as ocular itching and bulbar conjunctival injection (redness). Treatment options for SAC include corticosteroids and dual-acting antihistamine and mast-cell stabilizers.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of loteprednol etabonate (LE), a C-20 ester-based corticosteroid, with those of olopatadine, a dual-acting antihistamine mast-cell stabilizer, in Chinese patients.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel group study. Patients with acute SAC experiencing grade 4 ocular itching and grade 2 or higher bulbar conjunctival injection received either LE suspension 0.2% QID at 4-hour intervals or olopatadine solution 0.1% BID at 6- to 8-hour intervals bilaterally for 15 days. Primary efficacy end points included the change from baseline (CFB) in ocular itching and bulbar conjunctival injection at day 15. The primary analysis tested the noninferiority of LE suspension 0.2% to olopatadine solution 0.1%. Tolerability outcomes included the incidence of adverse events (AEs), biomicroscopy findings, visual acuity, and intraocular pressure.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were randomly assigned, and 293 were included in the per-protocol population (LE, n = 147; olopatadine, n = 146). Mean (SD) CFB at day 15 in the LE and olopatadine treatment groups, respectively, was -3.74 (0.47) and -3.28 (0.91) for ocular itching and -1.91 (0.52) and -1.71 (0.59) for bulbar conjunctival injection. The 95% CI for the differences in CFB in ocular itching (-0.59 to -0.27) and bulbar conjunctival injection (-0.27 to -0.08) was less than the prespecified noninferiority limit of 0.3. Treatment differences in CFB were significantly better with LE compared with olopatadine for both end points (P ≤ 0.0006). Ocular AEs were few and similar between treatment groups. There were no clinically significant biomicroscopy or visual acuity findings, and no patient experienced a clinically significant increase in intraocular pressure (≥10 mm Hg).

CONCLUSION

Results of this investigator-masked study with Chinese patients suggest LE suspension 0.2% was noninferior to olopatadine solution 0.1% for the treatment of SAC. Both LE suspension 0.2% and olopatadine solution 0.1% were well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01435460.

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.

Causes and management of red eye in pediatric ophthalmology

Red eye is the most common ocular sign encountered in emergency and outpatient settings. Recognition of vision-threatening causes and those requiring referral to an ophthalmologist is of utmost importance. This article reviews causes and management of red eye in children with an emphasis on allergic etiology, pathophysiology, and recent advances in therapy.

Clinical trials in allergic conjunctivits: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ocular allergy represents one of the most common conditions encountered by allergists and ophthalmologists. However, there is wide variability of study designs in clinical trials of allergic conjunctivitis, which results in conflicting evidence on their optimal management. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials to critically evaluate their quality and to highlight biases to be avoided in future clinical research in ocular allergy.

METHODS

Clinical trials in allergic conjunctivitis performed since 1965 were retrieved, and data on patients, interventions, comparison of interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Four authors independently assessed articles for inclusion in the systematic review and assessed trials' quality using the Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty-two trials were included in the study. Only a minority of trials fulfilled all the criteria of proper clinical trial design. In most of the studies, there was a very limited use of objective (quantifiable) parameters for both patients' selection and evaluation of drug efficacy and safety. Several outcomes of primary importance, such as disease relapses and recurrence rate, were omitted in clinical trials of allergic conjunctivitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence coming out of clinical trials in ocular allergy is limited, and this affects the strength of recommendations to health care providers and policy makers for optimal management. Standardized diagnostic criteria for patient selection and quantifiable primary outcomes are recommended to improve the design of future clinical trials in allergic conjunctivitis.

Atopic dermatitis and keratoconjunctivitis

Atopic dermatitis, a chronic disease seen by allergist-immunologists, has both dermatologic and ocular manifestations. The ocular component is often disproportionately higher than the dermatologic disease. Even if skin abnormalities seem well controlled, these patients require ophthalmic evaluation. Atopic keratoconjunctivitis in atopic dermatitis patients is characterized by acute exacerbations and requires maintenance therapy for long-term control. Future studies will continue to emphasize the use of steroid-sparing, immunomodulating agents that have the potential to provide long-lasting anti-inflammatory control with a more favorable side-effect profile.

Ocular surface disease: a case of vernal keratoconjunctivitis

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a recurrent, chronic allergic inflammation of the ocular surface associated with remodeling of the cornea and conjunctiva, with a potential to adversely affect the patient's vision and quality of life. It affects mainly children and young adults. The purpose of this interventional case report is to present a typical case of limbal VKC, which was unresponsive to antiallergic treatment alone. A 5-year-old boy, who was previously unsuccessful with conventional anti-allergic therapy alone, presented with clinicopathological features pathognomonic of limbal VKC. The patient was successfully managed with a combination of palliative, anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory therapy. Prophylaxis with an anti-allergic pharmaceutical agent was initiated for long term use to prevent the release of allergic mediators. This case highlights the importance of prescribing the most appropriate pharmaceutical medication for VKC since conjunctival fibroproliferative lesions are often resistant to anti-allergy therapy. Allergic inflammatory mediators are responsible for the fibroproliferative changes of the conjunctiva and corneal lesions in VKC. Thus, it is crucial to prescribe the most appropriate pharmaceutical medication that will prevent the release of allergic inflammatory mediators, control the allergic inflammatory cascade and prevent ocular surface damage. The fine points of this case are presented with a review of applicable literature.

Allergy and the eye

The eye represents an ideal and frequent site for the allergic reactions. The term 'allergic conjunctivitis' refers to a collection of disorders that affect the lid, conjunctiva and/or cornea. Even though the diagnosis is essentially clinical, local tests such as cytology, conjunctival provocation and tear mediator analysis can be performed. The immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mechanism does not explain completely the severity and the clinical course of chronic allergic ocular diseases such as vernal (VKC) and atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), which are probably also related to T cell-mediated responses, massive eosinophil attraction and activation and non-specific hypersensitivity. An altered balance between T helper type 1 (Th1) and Th2 cells and between Th1- and Th2-types of cytokines is thought to be responsible of the development of ocular allergic disorders. New findings suggest that a wide range of cytokines, chemokines, proteases and growth factors are involved by complex interwoven interactions rather than distinct and parallel pathways. In addition, several non-specific enzymatic systems may be activated during acute and chronic allergic inflammation, thus contributing to the complex pathogenesis of the disease. Current drug treatment for ocular allergy targets the key mechanisms involved in the development of clinical disease: mast cells with mast cell stabilizers, histamine with histamine receptor antagonists and inflammation with corticosteroids, severe inflammation with immunomodulators. None of these agents lacks side effects and none abolishes signs and symptoms completely. New therapeutic strategies are still needed to respond to the complex pathogenesis of severe forms of ocular allergy such as VKC and AKC.

Urban eye allergy syndrome: a new clinical entity?

BACKGROUND

A significant number of patients present with conjunctivitis that is not strictly speaking of allergic, infectious, or dry eye origin. Patients affected by this pseudo-allergic form of vasomotor or idiopathic conjunctivitis usually live in urban polluted areas and may be affected by a new clinical entity called the 'urban eye allergy syndrome'.

SCOPE

To identify the incidence, pathogenesis and therapeutic response of this condition by collecting from the literature experimental evidence on the relationship between air pollution, allergy, and conjunctival disease.

FINDINGS

Allergen susceptibility might be increased in areas with increased air pollutants. Both allergens and pollutants can directly initiate specific and nonspecific mucosal inflammation through several interweaving mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

The present commentary introduces the concept of 'urban eye allergy syndrome' discussing inter-actions between air pollutants and pollens, the increase of allergic signs and symptoms by pollutants, the prevalence of urban allergy, preliminary data from a single restricted geographical area, and proposed mechanisms of action.

Clinical grading of atopic keratoconjunctivitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), the most severe and chronic form of ocular surface allergy-related disorder, is the ocular surface complication that some atopic dermatitis patients can suffer. Its wide range of severity, from mild and occasional problems to persistent and intense inflammation, makes it difficult to appropriately select uniform patients for clinical studies. This article proposes a new classification system for AKC based on clinical severity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent reports on AKC have contributed to a better understanding of the pathogenesis and clinical manifestations, and are offering new therapeutic candidates for AKC. No reports, however, have been found that address a classification of this disease.

SUMMARY

A new definition and classification for AKC is presented by this review, based on clinical severity, grading the main symptoms and signs. It intends to serve as a first forum of discussion among clinicians and other scientists working in the field of ocular surface inflammation. The final intention is to have a common language helping develop efficient clinical trials leading to successful approval of new therapeutic compounds for this blinding ocular surface condition.