Comparison of effects of alcaftadine and olopatadine on conjunctival epithelium and eosinophil recruitment in a murine model of allergic conjunctivitis

A nerve-goblet cell association promotes allergic conjunctivitis through rapid antigen passage

The penetration of allergens through the epithelial layer is the initial step in the development of allergic conjunctivitis. Although pollinosis patients manifest symptoms within minutes after pollen exposure, the mechanisms of the rapid transport of the allergens remain unclear. In the present study, we found that the instillation of pollen shells rapidly induces a large number of goblet cell-associated antigen passages (GAPs) in the conjunctiva. Antigen acquisition by stromal cells, including macrophages and CD11b+ dendritic cells, correlated with surface GAP formation. Furthermore, a substantial amount of antigen was transported to the stroma during the first 10 minutes of pollen exposure, which was sufficient for the full induction of an allergic conjunctivitis mouse model. This inducible, rapid GAP formation and antigen acquisition were suppressed by topical lidocaine or trigeminal nerve ablation, indicating that the sensory nervous system plays an essential role. Interestingly, pollen shell-stimulated GAP formation was not suppressed by topical atropine, suggesting that the conjunctival GAPs and intestinal GAPs are differentially regulated. These results identify pollen shell-induced GAP as a therapeutic target for allergic conjunctivitis.

Comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% in allergic conjunctivitis

Purpose:

To compare the efficacy and safety of Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2%, and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solutions in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Methods:

This is a prospective, observer-masked, comparative study of 180 patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis, randomized into three groups of 60 patients each. Each group was assigned to be treated with one of the three treatment options namely Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solutions. Patients were followed-up at regular intervals with relief and resolution of symptoms and signs noted using Total Ocular Scoring System (TOSS) and hyperaemia scale.

Results:

All three topical medications were effective in resolving symptoms of the patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis. Baseline mean TOSS scores for Alcaftadine group, Olopatadine group and Bepotastine besilate group were (7.68±2.32), (7.65±2.32) and (7.45±2.27) respectively as compared to the corresponding TOSS scores on 14^th Day (4^th visit) which were (0.2 ± 0.43), (0.4 ± 0.56) and (0.1 ± 0.36) respectively. The resolution of symptoms in the Bepotastine and Alcaftadine groups was significantly profound as compared to the Olopatadine group (p = 0.008). Bepotastine and Alcaftadine groups significantly reduced allergic conjunctivitis symptoms compared to Olopatadine group (p = 0.008).

Conclusion:

All three topical ophthalmic medications used in the study are safe and effective in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. However, Bepotastine and Alcaftadine appear to outweigh Olopatadine in resolving the symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.

Efficacy of Alcaftadine 0.25% (AGN-229666) for Once-daily Prevention of Cedar-Pollen Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Phase 3 Randomized Study

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily Alcaftadine 0.25% (AGN-229666) for prevention of signs and symptoms of Japanese cedar-pollen allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

This was a single-center, placebo-, and comparator-controlled study using the Ora-CAC® model of allergic conjunctivitis. The primary endpoint was ocular itching 16 hours after Alcaftadine 0.25% instillation; efficacy at 16 hours was compared with 0.1% Olopatadine, 4 hours after instillation. Secondary endpoints included conjunctival hyperemia.

RESULTS

263 Japanese subjects were enrolled; 224 completed the trial. Alcaftadine 0.25% was statistically superior to vehicle for relief of ocular itching at 16 hours (p < .0001). Alcaftadine 0.25% at 16 hours was non-inferior to Olopatadine at 4 hours. Alcaftadine 0.25% was significantly better than vehicle for relief of conjunctival hyperemia. All treatments showed a low frequency of ocular adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily Alcaftadine 0.25% is safe and effective in preventing signs and symptoms of Japanese cedar-pollen allergic conjunctivitis.

Observer-masked trial comparing efficacy of topical olopatadine (0.1%), bepotastine (1.5%), and alcaftadine (0.25%) in mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis

Purpose:

With increasing environmental pollution, the incidence of allergic conjunctivitis is increasing. Newer anti-allergic medications with combined anti-histaminic and mast cell stabilization action can help reducing the use of topical steroids for milder form of disease. There is no study directly comparing olopatadine (0.1%), bepotastine (1.5%), and alcaftadine (0.25%) for mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis cases. Hence, we decided to methodically study the efficacy of three topical medications.

Methods:

Prospective, observer-masked clinical trial enrolled 45 patients with 15 patients in each of the three groups. Patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis were sequentially assigned to respective groups, and relief of symptoms and signs were noted upto 1-month follow-up.

Results:

All three topical medications faired almost equally in resolving symptoms of the patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis, and most of them reported complete relief after 1 week of use of medication. Few cases with limbal or palpebral papillae reported symptomatic relief after use of medication, but the resolution of these signs was not noted in all three groups.

Conclusion:

We concluded similar efficacy of three medications in relieving symptoms and inefficacy in regressing palpebral and limbal papillae in cases of allergic conjunctivitis.

Comparison of cytotoxicities and anti-allergic effects of topical ocular dual-action anti-allergic agents

Background

To investigate the cytotoxicities of the topical ocular dual-action anti-allergic agents (alcaftadine 0.25%, bepotastine besilate 1.5%, and olopatadine HCL 0.1%) on human corneal epithelial cells (HCECs) and their anti-allergic effects on cultured conjunctival epithelial cells.

Methods

A Methylthiazolyltetrazolium(MTT)-based calorimetric assay was used to assess cytotoxicities using HCECs at concentrations of 10, 20 or 30% for exposure durations of 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 12 h or 24 h. Cellular morphologies were evaluated by inverted phase-contrast and electron microscopy. Wound widths were measured 2 h, 18 h, or 24 h after confluent HCECs monolayers were scratched. Realtime PCR was used to quantify anti-allergic effects on cultured human conjunctival cells, in which allergic reactions were induced by treating them with Aspergillus antigen.

Results

Cell viabilities decreased in time- and concentration-dependent manners. Cells were detached from dishes and showed microvilli loss, cytoplasmic vacuoles, and nuclear condensation when exposed to antiallergic agents; alcaftadine was found to be least cytotoxic. Alcaftadine treated HCECs monolayers showed the best wound healing followed by bepotastine and olopatadine (p < 0.0001). All agents significantly reduced the gene expressions of allergic cytokines (IL-5, IL-25, eotaxin, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin) and alcaftadine had the greatest effect (p < 0.0001 in all cases).

Conclusions

Alcaftadine seems to have less side effects and better therapeutic effects than the other two anti-allergic agents tested. It may be more beneficial to use less toxic agents for patients with ocular surface risk factors or presumed symptoms of toxicity.

Immunopathology of Allergic Conjunctivitis

Allergic conjunctivitis is predominantly an immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to environmental allergens. Allergic diseases affect >30% of the world’s population, of which 40% report associated ocular manifestations. Cellular and soluble mediators play a major role in the pathophysiology of allergic conjunctivitis. Mast cells, which are major effector cells of allergic conjunctivitis, undergo activation and degranulation to release histamine, tryptase, prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and cytokines. These mediators play important roles in immunopathological mechanisms that generate the clinical manifestations of allergic conjunctivitis. These clinical features include conjunctival hyperaemia, chemosis, tearing, itching, papillae, mucus discharge, and eyelid oedema. Histamine mediates the early phase of the allergic immune response, whereas lipid mediators and cytokines are involved in the late phase of the immunopathology of allergic conjunctivitis. Current management of allergic conjunctivitis includes non-pharmacological approaches such as allergen avoidance and palliative therapy, whereas pharmacological therapeutic modalities may include antihistamine–mast cell stabiliser combination ophthalmic formulations and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Furthermore, as cellular and soluble mediators play a pivotal role in the immunopathogenesis and immunopathology of allergic conjunctivitis, development of immunotherapeutic and pharmacotherapeutic agents specific to these mediators can enhance the therapeutic index and safety profile of anti-allergy treatment.

Ocular itch associated with allergic conjunctivitis: latest evidence and clinical management

Allergic conjunctivitis is one of the most common allergic conditions worldwide. Its incidence is increasing due to changing climate, pollution, increased pollen loads, and the subject's heightened immunological sensitivity in response to these environmental changes. The pathophysiology predominantly involves immunoglobulin E-related mast-cell activation, with release of histamine and other mediators contributing to the propagation of the response by calling in other immune cells and further inflammation. This article presents the evolution of ocular allergy treatments, from vasoconstrictors, to antihistamines and mast-cell stabilizers, to the dual-acting agents, as well as corticosteroid and immunomodulatory options. Future targets for allergy treatment are also discussed.

Update and clinical utility of alcaftadine ophthalmic solution 0.25% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic disorders of the ocular surface are primarily characterized as IgE- and/or T-lymphocyte-mediated disorders that affect the cornea, conjunctiva, and eyelid. Approximately 40% of individuals in the developed countries have allergic conjunctivitis, and as such, it is the most common form of ocular allergy. Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis is the most prevalent type of allergic conjunctivitis that impacts the quality of life of patients. This article reviews the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials, clinical efficacy, and safety of alcaftadine. Histamine and the pathological mechanism of ocular allergy will be briefly reviewed with the intent of providing a background for the detailed discussion on the clinical utility of alcaftadine in allergic conjunctivitis. The Medline PubMed, Elsevier Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases were used to search for evidence-based literature on histamine and immunopathological mechanism of allergic conjunctivitis, as well as on pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials, and clinical efficacy of alcaftadine. The treatment and management goals of allergic conjunctivitis are to prevent or minimize the inflammatory cascade associated with allergic response in the early stages of the pathological mechanism. It is of note that activation of histamine receptors on immune and nonimmune cells are associated with allergen-induced inflammation of the conjunctiva and its associated ocular allergic manifestations, including itching, edema, hyperemia, and tearing. Alcaftadine is an efficacious multiple action antiallergic therapeutic agent with inverse agonist activity on H1, H2, and H4 receptors, as well as anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing effects that could provide therapeutic benefits to patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

Ocular itch relief with alcaftadine 0.25% versus olopatadine 0.2% in allergic conjunctivitis: pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials

Introduction

The efficacy and safety of the once-daily topical ophthalmic solutions, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, in preventing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis were evaluated.

Methods

Pooled analysis was conducted of two double-masked, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive alcaftadine 0.25%, olopatadine 0.2%, or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 min post-CAC. Ocular itch was determined over all time points measured (3, 5, and 7 min) post-CAC and the proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score <1) and zero itch (itch score = 0) was also assessed.

Results

A total of 284 subjects were enrolled in the two studies. At 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation, alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a significantly lower mean itch score compared with olopatadine 0.2% (0.50 vs. 0.87, respectively; P = 0.0006). Alcaftadine demonstrated a significantly lower mean itch score over all time points compared with olopatadine (0.68 vs. 0.92, respectively; P = 0.0390); both alcaftadine- and olopatadine-treated subjects achieved significantly lower overall mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo (2.10; P < 0.0001 for both actives). Minimal itch over all time points was reported by 76.1% of alcaftadine-treated subjects compared with 58.1% of olopatadine-treated subjects (P = 0.0121). Treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% was safe and well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution demonstrated greater efficacy in prevention of ocular itching compared with olopatadine 0.2% at 3 min post-CAC (primary endpoint), and over all time points, 16 h post-treatment instillation. Alcaftadine and olopatadine both provided effective relief compared with placebo and were generally well tolerated.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0155-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and duration of action of alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% in the conjunctival allergen challenge model

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and duration of action of once-daily dosing with alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution as compared with placebo in the prevention of ocular itching, and to directly compare the efficacy of alcaftadine 0.25% with olopatadine 0.2% in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

Methods

Subjects with allergic conjunctivitis (n = 127) were enrolled in a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Using the conjunctival allergen challenge model, this study was conducted over the course of approximately 5 weeks. Subjects were randomized into one of three treatment arms: alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution, olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution, or placebo. Study medications were administered twice over the course of the trial. The primary efficacy measure for the study was ocular itching evaluated by the subject at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post challenge. Secondary endpoints, measured at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post challenge, included conjunctival, ciliary, and episcleral redness, lid swelling, chemosis, and tearing. Duration of action was measured at 16 and 24 hours post-instillation of the study medication at visits 3 and 4, respectively.

Results

For the primary measure of ocular itching, both actives, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, were statistically superior to placebo at all three measured time points for both the 16-hour and 24-hour measures (P < 0.0001). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% had numerically lower mean ocular itching scores than eyes treated with olopatadine 0.2% at every time point, and this difference was statistically significant at the 3-minute time point 16 hours post instillation (P = 0.026). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% and with olopatadine 0.2% displayed significantly less lid swelling relative to placebo at every time point for the 16-hour and 24-hour post-instillation visits (P < 0.005). Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only active treatment that provided statistically significant relief of chemosis at every time point of the 24-hour post-instillation visit.

Conclusion

Both the alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solutions provided highly effective relief of ocular itching at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Treatment differences between the actives were most pronounced at the earliest time point (3 minutes post-challenge) following conjunctival allergen challenge (16 hours), when alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was statistically superior to olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution. Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only treatment to provide significant relief from chemosis at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Both active treatments and placebo were generally safe and well tolerated.

Exacerbation of signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis by a controlled adverse environment challenge in subjects with a history of dry eye and ocular allergy

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to assess the effect of a controlled adverse environment (CAE) challenge on subjects with both allergic conjunctivitis and dry eye.

METHODS

Thirty-three subjects were screened and 17 completed this institutional review board-approved study. Subjects underwent baseline ocular assessments and conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) on days 0 and 3. Those who met the ocular redness and itching criteria were randomized to receive either the controlled adverse environment (CAE) challenge (group A, n = 9) or no challenge (group B, n = 8) at day 6. Thirty minutes after CAE/no-CAE, subjects were challenged with allergen and their signs and symptoms graded. Exploratory confocal microscopy was carried out in a subset of subjects at hourly intervals for 5 hours post-CAC on days 3 and 6.

RESULTS

Seven minutes post-CAC, subjects exposed to the CAE had significantly greater itching (difference between groups, 0.55 ± 0.25, P = 0.028), conjunctival redness (0.59 ± 0.19, P = 0.002), episcleral redness (0.56 ± 0.19, P = 0.003) and mean overall redness (mean of conjunctival, episcleral, and ciliary redness, 0.59 ± 0.14, P < 0.001). The mean score at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post-CAC for conjunctival redness (0.43 ± 0.17, P = 0.012), episcleral redness (0.49 ± 0.15, P = 0.001), mean overall redness in all regions (0.43 ± 0.15, P = 0.005), and mean chemosis (0.20 ± 0.08, P = 0.017) were also all significantly greater in CAE-treated subjects. Confocal microscopic images of conjunctival vessels after CAC showed more inflammation in CAE-treated subjects.

CONCLUSION

In subjects with both dry eye and allergic conjunctivitis, exposure to adverse environmental conditions causes an ocular surface perturbation that can intensify allergic reactions.