Clinical efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% compared with placebo in patients with allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis: a randomized, double-masked environmental study

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.

Reproxalap Activity and Estimation of Clinically Relevant Thresholds for Ocular Itching and Redness in a Randomized Allergic Conjunctivitis Field Trial

INTRODUCTION

This clinical trial assessed the activity of reproxalap, a novel reactive aldehyde species modulator, and estimated clinically relevant thresholds for changes in ocular itching and redness in an allergic conjunctivitis field trial.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled phase 2 trial. Patients with ragweed-associated allergic conjunctivitis were assessed over 28 days in an environmental setting with approximately four doses per day of either 0.25% reproxalap, 0.5% reproxalap, or vehicle. Patients recorded ocular itching, redness, tearing, and eyelid swelling scores (each with a 0-4 scale, except for a 0-3 scale for swelling), and completed the Allergic Conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire at the beginning and end of the trial.

RESULTS

Mixed model of repeated measures analysis demonstrated statistically lower itching and tearing scores (pooled P = 0.026 and P < 0.001, respectively) and numerically lower redness and eyelid swelling scores than vehicle on days when pollen exceeded the 95th percentile value. Using three anchor-based and three distribution-based approaches, the meaningful within-patient change and the between-group meaningful difference for patient-reported ocular itching and redness was estimated to be approximately 0.5. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event associated with reproxalap was transient irritation upon instillation.

CONCLUSION

In a field clinical trial, reproxalap was well tolerated and superior to vehicle in reducing ocular itching on high-pollen days. The clinical meaningfulness threshold estimates of 0.5 units are among the first such calculations generated for the standard ocular itching and redness scores, providing important context for the clinical interpretation of clinical trials in allergic conjunctivitis.

Reproxalap Improves Signs and Symptoms of Allergic Conjunctivitis in an Allergen Chamber: A Real-World Model of Allergen Exposure

Purpose

To assess the prophylactic and treatment activity of reproxalap, a novel reactive aldehyde species inhibitor, in a real-world model of allergen exposure.

Methods

In a randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, crossover Phase 2 trial, 70 adult patients with ≥2 years of moderate to severe allergic conjunctivitis history, a positive skin test to ragweed pollen, and allergen chamber-induced ocular itching and redness scores of ≥2.5 and ≥2 (both scales range from 0 to 4), respectively, were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three sequences: 0.25% reproxalap, 0.5% reproxalap, and placebo; 0.5% reproxalap, placebo, and 0.25% reproxalap; or placebo, 0.25% reproxalap, and 0.5% reproxalap. Symptoms and conjunctival redness were assessed over 3.5 hours in an allergen chamber of aerosolized ragweed pollen (3500 grains/m³). Test article was administered bilaterally just before chamber entry and at 90 minutes after chamber entry.

Results

Reproxalap was safe and well tolerated; 66 of 70 enrolled patients completed all visits. Relative to vehicle, both concentrations of reproxalap demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in ocular itching, tearing, and redness over the duration of exposure in the chamber (P < 0.001 for all assessments). Prophylactic and treatment activity of drug were demonstrated.

Conclusion

In an allergen chamber, reproxalap, a novel reactive aldehyde species inhibitor, was statistically superior to vehicle across the typical symptoms and signs of allergic conjunctivitis. These data are among the first rigorous clinical results demonstrating drug improvement in allergic conjunctivitis in an allergen chamber, a real-world model of allergen exposure.

Discovery to Launch of Anti-allergy (Emadine; Patanol/Pataday/Pazeo) and Anti-glaucoma (Travatan; Simbrinza) Ocular Drugs, and Generation of Novel Pharmacological Tools Such as AL-8810

The eye and eyesight are exquistly designed and are precious, and yet we often take them for granted. Good vision is critical for our long-term survival and for humanity's enduring progress. Unfortunately, since ocular diseases do not culminate in life-and-death scenarios, awareness of the plight of millions of people suffering from such eye ailments is not publicized as other diseases. However, losing eyesight or falling victim to visual impairment is a frightening outlook for most people. Glaucoma, a collection of chronic optic neuropathies, of which the most prevalent form, primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), is the second leading cause of irreversible blindness. POAG currently afflicts >70 million people worldwide and is an insidious, progressive, silent thief of sight that is asymptomatic. On the other hand, allergic conjunctivitis (AC), and the associated rhinitis ("hay-fever"), frequently victimizes a huge number of people worldwide, especially during seasonal changes. While not life-threatening, sufferers of AC soon learn the value of drugs to treat their signs and symptoms of AC as they desire rapid relief to overcome the ocular itching/pain, redness, and tearing AC causes. Herein, I will describe the collective efforts of many researchers whose industrious, diligent, and dedicated team work resulted in the discovery, biochemical/pharmacological characterization, development and eventual launch of drugs to treat AC (e.g., olopatadine [Patanol/Pataday/Pazeo] and emedastine [Emedine]), and for treating ocular hypertension and POAG (e.g., travoprost [Travatan ] and Simbrinza). This represents a personal perspective.

The Effect Of Topical Antihistamines Used Single Dose Daily in Allergic Conjunctivitis

Background and Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of 0.2% olopatadine and to compare olopatadine 0.1%, ketotifen 0.025% and emadastine 0.05% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Methods:

In this retrospectively designed study, we investigated the files of patients who had been diagnosed with perineal or seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in the teaching hospital of Maltepe University between April 2017 and July 2017. We divided the patients into four groups. The patients in each group had similar symptoms and scores before medication. The first, second, third and fourth groups were prescribed olapatadine 0.1%, olopatadine 0.2%, ketotifen 0.025% and emedastine 0.05%, respectively. We evaluated the symptoms and signs of the patients on the 15th day after treatment, and compared the results between the groups.

Results:

We investigated the files of 80 patients. There were 20 patients in each group. We evaluated the symptoms and finding scores after treatment. The symptoms and findings of allergic conjunctivitis had improved in all the four groups. There was no difference in the treatment responses between the four groups.

Conclusion:

Olopatadine 0.2%, olopatadine 0.1%, ketotifen 0.025% and emedastine 0.05% were all equally effective in improving the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.

Low-dose brimonidine for relief of ocular redness: integrated analysis of four clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to provide an integrated analysis of safety and efficacy data for brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.025 per cent (low-dose; Bausch & Lomb Incorporated), a topical vasoconstrictor for relief of ocular redness.

METHODS

Integrated efficacy data from two randomised, double-masked, vehicle-controlled studies in subjects with ocular redness as well as safety data from the two efficacy studies, a vehicle-controlled safety study, and a pharmacokinetic study were analysed. Efficacy outcomes analysed included investigator-assessed ocular redness (scale, 0-4) before treatment instillation and at five to 240 minutes post-instillation on Day 1, at five minutes post-instillation on Days 15 and 29, and one week after treatment discontinuation (Day 36), and redness self-assessed by subjects recorded daily in diaries. Safety assessments included adverse events, ophthalmic examinations, and rebound redness upon treatment discontinuation. Drop comfort (scale, 0-10) was a tolerability measure.

RESULTS

The efficacy population included 117 subjects (brimonidine, n = 78; vehicle, n = 39). The safety population included 635 subjects (brimonidine, n = 426; vehicle, n = 209). Investigator-assessed ocular redness was significantly lower with brimonidine versus vehicle at all post-instillation time points on Day 1 (mean change from pre-instillation of -1.4 units for brimonidine and -0.2 units for vehicle; p < 0.0001). Subject-assessed ocular redness was also significantly lower with brimonidine versus vehicle (mean treatment difference in average daily ratings of -0.9; p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis through Day 29 and rebound redness was rare. Incidence of ocular adverse events was low, the most common being reduced visual acuity (brimonidine, 4.0 per cent; vehicle, 4.3 per cent) and conjunctival hyperaemia (2.6 and 2.9 per cent, respectively). Both brimonidine and vehicle were rated as very comfortable (mean post-instillation scores, 0.4-0.5).

CONCLUSION

In this integrated analysis, low-dose brimonidine significantly reduced ocular redness with no tachyphylaxis, and minimal rebound redness, and was generally safe and well tolerated.

Brimonidine Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% for Reduction of Ocular Redness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

SIGNIFICANCE

The α2-adrenergic receptor agonist brimonidine has been reported to induce conjunctival blanching in cataract, strabismus, laser refractive, and filtration procedures. Clinicians are often faced with red eyes with no apparent underlying pathology. Low-dose brimonidine reduced ocular redness in such subjects with efficacy maintained over 1 month and negligible rebound redness.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.025% for the treatment of ocular redness.

METHODS

In this single-center, double-masked, phase 3 clinical trial, adult subjects with baseline redness of more than 1 unit in both eyes (0- to 4-unit scale) were randomized 2:1 to brimonidine 0.025% or vehicle. A single dose was administered in-office (day 1); thereafter subjects instilled treatment four times a day for 4 weeks, with clinic visits on days 15, 29, and 36 (7 days post-treatment). Efficacy end points included investigator-evaluated redness 5 to 240 minutes post-instillation on day 1 (primary); investigator-evaluated change from baseline 1, 360, and 480 minutes post-instillation on day 1, and 1 and 5 minutes post-instillation on days 15 and 29; total clearance of redness, and subject-assessed redness. Safety/tolerability measures included adverse events, rebound redness, and drop comfort.

RESULTS

Sixty subjects were randomized (n = 40 brimonidine, n = 20 vehicle). Investigator-assessed redness was lower with brimonidine versus vehicle over the 5- to 240-minute post-instillation period (mean [SE], 0.62 [0.076] vs. 1.49 [0.108]; P < .0001) and at each time point within that period (P < .0001). At 1, 360, and 480 minutes post-instillation, respectively, the mean differences (95% confidence interval) between treatments were -0.73 (-1.05 to -0.41), -0.57 (-0.84 to -0.29), and -0.39 (-0.67 to -0.10), respectively. No tachyphylaxis was evident with brimonidine on days 15 and 29, and minimal rebound redness was observed following discontinuation. Adverse events were infrequent, and brimonidine was rated as very comfortable.

CONCLUSIONS

Brimonidine 0.025% appeared safe and effective for reduction of ocular redness, with an 8-hour duration of action, no evidence of tachyphylaxis, and negligible rebound redness.

Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available as oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications of olopatadine therapy focus on the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes. Areas covered: This article was created from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials of children and adults. The articles that have been selected, evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Expert opinion: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. It can function both as a viable alternative or addition to first line therapies such as intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines.

Pooled analysis of two studies evaluating efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis

Purpose

Two individual phase 3 conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies of similar design have assessed the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl) 0.77% for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the integrated efficacy and safety of olopatadine HCl 0.77% from a larger dataset by pooling data from the two individual CAC studies.

Methods

Data were pooled from two phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active- and vehicle-controlled CAC studies. The primary comparison was on ocular itching scores between olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus vehicle (at onset and 24 hours) and olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% (at 24 hours). Additional end points included conjunctival redness, total redness, and proportion of itching responders at onset and 24-hour duration of CAC. For both primary and secondary analysis, mixed model repeated measures analysis was used, except for proportion of ocular itching responders. Sensitivity analyses were carried out using a two-sample t-test.

Results

This analysis included 448 patients. Olopatadine HCl 0.77% was superior to vehicle (P<0.0001) at onset and 24-hour duration of action (difference in means: −1.14 to −1.52) and to olopatadine 0.2% (P=0.0009) at 24-hour duration of action in relieving ocular itch. Additionally, olopatadine HCl 0.77% substantially reduced conjunctival redness and total redness over vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% at onset and 24-hour duration of action. At 24 hours CAC, there were a higher proportion of itching responders with olopatadine HCl 0.77% compared to vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% (difference in proportion of responders: 43.17%, P<0.0001, and 17.25%, P=0.0012, respectively). No safety concerns were identified.

Conclusion

This analysis confirms the findings from the individual studies. The rapid onset and prolonged duration of action (for 24 hours) of olopatadine HCl 0.77% supports once-daily dosing in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Topical Olopatadine in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of topical olopatadine versus placebo and other topical anti-allergic medications in treating allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for randomized-controlled trials that included patients with allergic conjunctivitis, compared olopatadine versus placebo or alternative anti-allergic medications, and examined itch, conjunctival hyperemia, composite symptom or sign scores, and/or occurrence of adverse events. We assessed the safety and efficacy of topical olopatadine when compared with placebo or alternative anti-allergic medications using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

When compared with placebo, topical olopatadine is associated with a pooled-mean difference (MD) in ocular itch of -1.33 (p < 0.00001) and ocular hyperemia of -0.92 (p < 0.00001). When compared with other agents, olopatadine was inferior to alcaftadine on ocular itch (pooled-MD = 0.39; p < 0.00001) but comparable with epinastine and ketotifen.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical olopatadine is a safe and effective treatment modality for allergic conjunctivitis, whereas alcaftadine appears to be superior to olopatadine in reducing ocular itch.

Phase 3 Randomized Double-Masked Study of Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily 0.77% Olopatadine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution in Subjects With Allergic Conjunctivitis Using the Conjunctival Allergen Challenge Model

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of a novel once-daily 0.77% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis (AC) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.

METHODS

In this 5-week, multicenter, double-masked, phase 3, randomized trial, subjects aged ≥18 years with a history of AC and a confirmed positive bilateral CAC response were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive olopatadine 0.77%, olopatadine 0.2%, olopatadine 0.1%, or vehicle, respectively, following a single topical dose in each eye. The primary objective was superiority of olopatadine 0.77% over all comparators on ocular itching according to a 0 to 4 scale (0 = none and 4 = incapacitating itch) at 24-hour duration of action and over vehicle only at the onset of action (3, 5, and 7 minutes after CAC for both).

RESULTS

In total, 345 subjects were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior to the vehicle at alleviating ocular itching at all post-CAC time points at the onset of action and at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.9 to -1.5; P < 0.0001). Superiority in relieving ocular itching was also demonstrated for olopatadine 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% and 0.1% at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.3 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Additionally, olopatadine 0.77% significantly improved conjunctival redness and total redness compared with all comparators at the onset of action (differences in means: -0.3 to -0.6 and -0.8 to -2.0, respectively; both P < 0.05). No safety concerns for olopatadine 0.77% were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine 0.77% demonstrated a rapid onset and prolonged duration of action. It was superior to all comparators in alleviating AC-associated ocular itching with a favorable safety profile.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01743027.

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.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen-challenge model

Background

Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study.

Patients and methods

In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed.

Results

A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (−1.52 to −1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (−1.50 to −1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (−1.58 to −1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.

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.

Once-daily olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis

Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% is a new once-daily formulation of olopatadine that is indicated for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. This formulation has demonstrated a safety, efficacy and comfort profile similar to that of olopatadine 0.1%. The advantages of once-daily dosing, however, may include cost-effectiveness, improvement in patient compliance and an improvement in quality of life. This review article will summarize literature reports on the 0.2% formulation of olopatadine from the standpoint of efficacy, safety, total treatment costs, therapeutic outcomes, patient compliance and effect on quality of life.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of olopatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available in three forms, including oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications focus on the use of olopatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes.

AREAS COVERED

This article was formed from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, treatment guidelines and clinical studies on children and adults. Articles that have been selected evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis.

EXPERT OPINION

Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in alleviating the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. Olopatadine is a viable alternative and addition to the mainstay therapy of these conditions with intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines. The compliance of the patients would be improved if a once-per-day formulation of olopatadine was developed for intranasal application. The future treatments of allergic rhinitis will probably involve a combination of intranasal antihistamine and steroid because clinical trials have demonstrated an improved efficacy without a significant increase in adverse effects.

Nonseasonal allergic conjunctivitis in the tropics: experience in a tertiary care institution

PURPOSE

To understand the epidemiology, severity, types of pathology, clinical features, precipitating factors, and treatment outcomes of patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a tropical climate receiving corneal subspecialist intervention. A total of 33 patients with severe allergic conjunctivitis under corneal subspecialist care in National University Hospital, Singapore were studied.

DESIGN

A retrospective, noncomparative case series.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

epidemiological data, clinical features, complete ophthalmological examination, and treatment types.

METHODS

Both eyes of 33 patients seen at the cornea subspecialist clinic between May 2005 and July 2006 were examined at baseline, and followed up. Clinical features, treatment given, and outcome variables through case sheet review were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (75.8%) were male, and 8 (24.2%) were female. Seventeen patients (51.5%) had concomitant allergic rhinitis, 16 patients (48.5%) had asthma, and 17 (51.5%) had associated dermatitis. Only 9 patients (27.3%) had documented precipitating factors. None of the 33 patients said that their symptoms were seasonal; 22 (66.7%) said their symptoms were perennial. Twenty-nine patients (87.9%) had punctate epithelial erosions, and 12 patients eventually progressed to have a corneal epithelial defect or shield ulcer (36.4%). Eleven out of the 33 patients (33.3%) received topical cyclosporine 0.5%. Of these, only 1 (9.1%) had documented complaints of intolerable side effects.

CONCLUSION

Allergic conjunctivitis in a non-temperate, non-seasonal climate has different clinical presentations, and varied precipitating factors. The disease in such conditions may respond differently to the usual anti-allergy drug options used in temperate countries.

Efficacy of once-daily olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution compared to twice-daily olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution for the treatment of ocular itching induced by conjunctival allergen challenge

Olopatadine 0.1% (Patanol) and olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday) ophthalmic solutions are topical ocular anti-allergic agents with antihistaminic and mast cell stabilizing properties. The efficacy of two doses of olopatadine 0.1% was compared to one dose of olopatadine 0.2% in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis over 24 hours. This double-masked conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) study found no significant difference in the mean itching scores between two drops of olopatadine 0.1% and one drop of olopatadine 0.2%. Both showed significant activity at the 24-hour time point and were statistically superior to placebo. No adverse events occurred while on drug therapy.

Safety and tolerability of olopatadine 0.2% in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% in children and adolescents 3-17 years of age.

METHODS

In this 6-week, randomized, double-masked safety evaluation, eligible subjects with asymptomatic eyes underwent in-office visits at weeks 1, 3, and 6 and were contacted by telephone at weeks 2, 4, and 5. Qualified subjects were assigned randomly in a 2:1 ratio of olopatadine 0.2% to vehicle (identical formation without the active ingredient) for dosing on a once-daily schedule. Safety parameters assessed included adverse events, visual acuity, ocular signs (slit-lamp assessments), dilated fundus examinations, intraocular pressure (IOP), pulse, and blood pressure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

An evaluation of 126 subjects (age range, 3-17) revealed no clinically relevant treatment-related changes in visual acuity, IOP, slit-lamp assessments, fundus examinations, or cardiovascular parameters. All adverse events reported were mild or moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine 0.2% administered once-daily for 6 weeks is safe and well tolerated in children and adolescent patients.

Perception and quality of life associated with the use of olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday) in patients with active allergic conjunctivitis

This 28-d, open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical study was designed to evaluate perceptions of olopatadine 0.2% in patients with active ocular allergic signs and symptoms. The study enrolled 330 patients, 5 to 94 y of age, who had previously used olopatadine 0.1% for active allergic conjunctivitis. Most patients were white (n=230; 70.1%) and female (n=239; 72.9%). Of all enrolled patients, 328 were evaluable for analysis. Throughout the study, patients instilled 1 drop of olopatadine 0.2% into each eye once daily; adverse events were documented and ocular evaluations were conducted to ensure patient safety. Direct evaluations of efficacy were not performed. On days 1 and 7, patients completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, recorded their perceptions of olopatadine 0.1% (day 1) or 0.2% (day 7), and had their ocular allergies assessed globally. On each of the first 6 d of treatment, patients also completed a telephone-based perception questionnaire. On day 28, patients returned to the study center, reported their treatment perceptions, had their ocular allergies assessed, and exited the trial. Overall, patients had a positive perception of olopatadine 0.2%. Patients were more satisfied with olopatadine 0.2% than they remembered being with olopatadine 0.1% (289 vs 257 patients; 87.6% vs 77.8%; P<.05). The majority of the 48 patients who wore contact lenses (n=42; 88%) believed that they could wear their contacts as desired. Significant improvement was noted in all categories of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P<.0001). No unexpected safety findings were reported. Patients perceived olopatadine 0.2% to be effective and well tolerated.

Comparison of the effects of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% and olopatadine HCl 0.1% ophthalmic solutions in seasonal allergic conjunctivities: a 30-day, randomized, double-masked, artificial tear substitute-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Topical antiallergic agents, such as antihistamines and mast-cell stabilizers, are the main therapeutic options for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). Ketotifen fumarate and olopatadine HCl have dual action that offers a combination of these 2 mechanisms. Although clinical studies comparing the efficacy of these 2 drugs have shown that both were effective in the treatment of SAC, the results were contradictory and did not include the effects of these drugs on inflammatory markers.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to compare the clinical efficacy of topical ketotifen and olopatadine eye drops and to determine the effects of these 2 drugs on the expression of cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) and inflammatory markers in conjunctival surface cells in patients with SAC.

METHODS

This 30-day, randomized, double-masked, artificial tear substitute (ATS)-controlled clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Karadeniz Technical University, School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey. Patients with SAC were included in the study and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: topical ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution, topical olopatadine HCl 0.1% ophthalmic solution, or ATS (control group). All drugs were administered 2 drops per eye BID for 30 days. At the beginning of the study (day 0; baseline), on day 15, and on day 30, clinical scores (itching, tearing, redness, eyelid, swelling, and chemosis) and conjunctival impression cytology specimens were obtained. The percentages of cells expressing intercellular adhesion molecule 1, vascular CAM-1, human leukocyte antigen-DR, and beta1-integrin (CD29) from conjunctival impression cytology specimens were determined using flow cytometry. Patients were questioned about adverse events (AEs) at each visit. Ocular discomfort on installation of the drugs was recorded as an AE.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients (20 men, 19 women; age range, 18-61 years) with SAC were included. Twelve patients received ketotifen; 13, olopatadine; and 14, ATS. In both active-treatment groups, the improvements of clinical scores (tearing and itching) were more pronounced compared with those in the ATS group, although the day-30 difference in tearing score between the olopatadine and ATS groups was not statistically significant. No significant within-group or between-group differences in mean scores for redness, chemosis, or eyelid swelling were found. The expression rates of CAMs and inflammatory markers in conjunctival surface cells were significantly more reduced with ketotifen and olopatadine compared with ATS. However, clinical and flow cytometric parameters were improved with ATS at 15 and 30 days compared with baseline. No AEs were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this short-term study in a selected, small study population with SAC, ketotifen and olopatadine diminished the expression of CAMs and inflammatory markers on the conjunctival surface cells effectively. Both active treatments were more efficacious compared with ATS and were well tolerated.

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.