Inhibitory effect of azelastine hydrochloride on synthesis and release of platelet activating factor from human alveolar macrophages

Antiallergic drugs, azelastine hydrochloride and epinastine hydrochloride, inhibit ongoing IgE secretion of rat IgE-producing hybridoma FE-3 cells

We asked whether or not antiallergic drugs, azelastine hydrochloride and epinastine hydrochloride, inhibit IgE secretion from IgE-producing hybridoma FE-3 cells. FE-3 cells were cultured in the presence of azelastine or epinastine for 24 h, washed in phosphate-buffered saline , and then recultured in the medium in the absence of the antiallergic drugs. IgE levels in the cultured medium as well as those in the cytoplasm of FE-3 cells were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. mRNA levels of Cepsilon, activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), XBP-1, and Bip were estimated by northern blot or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis. The activities of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappaB) were analyzed by electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA). Phosphorylation of I kappa B alpha (IkappaBalpha) was analyzed by immunoprecipitation followed by western blot analysis. IgE levels in the cultured medium and in the microsome fraction were lower on the treatment with 10(-5) M azelastine or epinastine than those on the treatment with vehicle. Cepsilon and AID mRNA levels were lower on the treatment with 10(-5) M azelastine than those on the treatment with vehicle, but were not decreased on the treatment with 10(-5) M epinastine. XBP-1 and Bip mRNA levels were not altered following treatment of the antiallergic drugs. Azelastine at 10(-5) M, but not epinastine, reduced DNA binding activity of NF-kappaB and also diminished IkappaBalpha phosphorylation, leading to sustaining IkappaBalpha protein levels. These findings suggest that azelastine exerts its inhibitory effect on the IgE secretion from FE-3 cells through the inhibition of Cepsilon mRNA expression, and that the inhibitory effect of epinastine is, at least in part, due to suppression of IgE synthesis at the post-transcriptional level.

Ocular allergy guidelines: a practical treatment algorithm

The treatment of ocular allergy requires a better understanding of the spectrum of clinical disorders involving various components of the immune system, and of interactions at the conjunctival surface. The immune response focuses primarily on the different levels of activity of Th2 lymphocytes and various other immune cells associated with allergic disorders, including mast cells, eosinophils, fibroblasts, and epithelial and endothelial cells. Ocular allergic disorders include seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC), vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC), giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC) and atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), which, through immunopathological and molecular immunological techniques, can all be better appreciated as being part of a larger spectrum of an atopic disease state. In SAC, pathological changes, such as increased mast-cell activation, the presence of migratory inflammatory cells, and early signs of cellular activation at the molecular level, are minimal. In PAC, these changes are more pronounced in line with the increased duration of allergenic stimulation. In more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis, such as VKC in children and AKC in adults, the following changes are evident: a persistent state of mast cell, eosinophil and lymphocyte activation; noted switching from connective-tissue to mucosal-type mast cells; increased involvement of corneal pathology; and follicular development and fibrosis. The treatment of acute and more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis has focused in the past on symptomatic relief of symptoms, but with a better understanding of the mechanisms involved we can now provide interventional therapeutic strategies and symptomatic relief. Our advances in the basic understanding of these conditions are providing the foundation for guidelines that improve the ocular health of patients with ocular allergies.

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

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