Absence of central effects with levocabastine eye drops

Treatment of allergy: Overview of synthetic anti-allergy small molecules in medicinal chemistry

The prevalence of allergic diseases has been continuously increasing over the past few decades, affecting approximately 20-30% of the global population. Allergic reactions to infection of respiratory tract, digestive tract, and skin system involve multiple different targets. The main difficulty of anti-allergy research is how to develop drugs with good curative effect and less side effects by adopting new multi-targets and mechanisms according to the clinical characteristics of different allergic populations and different allergens. This review focuses on information concerning potential therapeutic targets as well as the synthetic anti-allergy small molecules with respect to their medicinal chemistry. The structure-activity relationship and the mechanism of compound-target interaction were highlighted with perspective to histamine-1/4 receptor antagonists, leukotriene biosynthesis, Th2 cytokines inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers. We hope that the study of chemical scaffold modification and optimization for different lead compounds summarized in this review not only lays the foundation for improvement of success rate and efficiency of virtual screening of antiallergic drugs, but also can provide valuable reference for the drug design of related promising research such as allergy, inflammation, and cancer.

Structural and clinical impact of anti-allergy agents: An overview

Allergic disorders are markedly rising in industrialized countries. The identification of compounds that trigger the immunoglobulin E (IgE)-dependent allergic reaction remain the means to improve the quality of life by limiting patient's exposure to critical allergens. Information concerning the treatment and onset of allergic disorders including atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and bronchial asthma has been provided by the research over the past decade. Recent studies also indicated that allergic inflammation is associated closely with their exacerbation and progression and indeed is the basic pathophysiology of allergic diseases. As a result of immunological and molecular biological studies our understanding of the mechanism of allergic inflammation with regard to therapeutic agents has improved. While much effort has been paid to developing a new anti-allergic agent, the allergic disease has yet to be completely conquered. The more extensive research will allow the development of new therapeutics to combat allergic diseases. Currently, with respect to mechanism of action anti-allergy drugs are classified into five types including histamine H₁ antagonists, leukotriene antagonists, Th₂ cytokine inhibitors, thromboxane A₂ inhibitors and mediator-release inhibitors. The use of two or more anti-allergy agents together is not acknowledged at present, but this will be the subject of research in the future because with different mechanisms of action anti-allergy agents used at the same time will theoretically increase their effects. This review article focuses on anti-allergy agents highlighting their applications, clinical trials and recent advancement on drugs.

Comparison of Topical 0.05% Levocabastine and 0.1% Lodoxamide in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

Purpose

The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.05% levocabastine eyedrops (H1 receptor blocker given BID + vehicle BID) compared with 0.1% lodoxamide ophthalmic solution (mast-cell stabilizer instilled QID) in reducing ocular signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.

Methods

A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study was conducted in seven centres in France, in which 93 patients suffering from seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were randomly allocated to either 0.05% levocabastine (n = 47) or 0.1% lodoxamide (n = 46) in both eyes for a 14-day period. Efficacy was evaluated by subjective (prickling, burning, photophobia, itching) and objective (redness, chemosis, eyelid edema, tearing) sign scores at visits on days 7 and 14, and from data noted daily by the patient in a self-evaluation form. Safety was assessed as tolerance upon instillation and adverse event reports.

Results

The ocular allergy symptom and sign scores were comparable in the two treatment groups at baseline. With time, statistically and clinically significant reductions (p < 0.001) from baseline were observed for the subjective and objective scores, with no difference between the treatment groups. After the first instillation, signs were alleviated more rapidly in levocabastine-treated patients than in the lodoxamide group (p < 0.001). Overall assessments by the patient and investigator were similar in both groups. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% (BID) appears to be as effective and safe as lodoxamide 0.1% (QID) in the management of allergic conjunctivitis.

A review of the tolerability and safety of levocabastine eye drops and nasal spray. Implications for patient management

Levocabastine is a highly potent and selective H₁-receptor antagonist specifically developed for topical administration by ocular and nasal routes. The clinical effects of levocabastine occur rapidly and are predominantly due to local antihistaminic effects at the site of application. Clinically, levocabastine is well tolerated with an adverse effect profile comparable with that of sodium cromoglycate and placebo. As might be expected from the route of drug administration, local irritation is the most frequent adverse event seen with levocabastine eye drops and nasal spray with an incidence comparable with that in placebo-treated controls. Intranasal application of levocabastine has been shown to have no adverse effect on ciliary activity both in vitro and in vivo, while ocular administration has not been shown to have any significant or consistent adverse effect in both animal and human studies. At therapeutic doses, levocabastine appears to be devoid of significant systemic activity producing no apparent effects on cardiovascular, psychomotor and cognitive function. Since levocabastine undergoes little hepatic metabolism, and only low plasma levels of the drug are attained following topical administration, drug interactions are unlikely.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

Topical immunopharmacology of ocular allergies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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.

Update on ocular allergy treatment

Allergy affects > 15% of the world population with a higher prevalence of 30% in westernised industrialised countries, such as the US. Allergy commonly affects various target organs including the eyes, nose, sinuses, ears, lungs and skin. However, the ocular component may be the most common and initially the most prominent disabling feature. Some patients are affected for only a few weeks to months while others have symptoms that last throughout the year. The associated healthcare costs related to allergic conjunctivitis has been commonly nestled with allergic rhinitis and has been reported to be as high as US$5.9 billion in the US, with 25% (US$1.5 billion) of it related to medication use. The expenditures related to ocular prescription medication has only recently risen in the past decade from US$6 million in early 1990s to > US$200 million in the new millennium with a projected continuous expansion of 25% per year. This appears to be due to improved prescription medications and their clear benefit over the less efficacious over-the-counter products. The actual cost of the medications and their relative price increases over the past year have ranged from 0 - 49% with an average cost of < US$ day. The newer topical medications (multiple acting agents) are focusing on multiple actions that include an antihistaminic effect to provide an immediate relief and additional delayed effects to act on the mediators of the late phase reaction without steroid side effects (glaucoma, cataracts). The paradigm for the treatment of ocular allergy ranges from primary measures (avoidance measures, cold compresses and lubrication), to secondary measures (various combination of topical agents) and tertiary measures that would include topical steroids and immunotherapy. The increased interest in advancing ocular treatment will lead to the development of additional therapies, novel pharmacokinetic delivery systems and, thus, improved healthcare outcomes for patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

Allergic and immunologic disorders of the eye. Part II: ocular allergy

Allergy affects more than 15% of the world population, and some studies have shown that up 30% of the US population has some form of allergy. Most of these patients have various target organs for their allergies, and most have ocular involvement. The ocular component may be the most prominent and sometimes disabling feature of their allergy. Some are affected for only a few weeks to months, whereas others have symptoms that last throughout the year. The seasonal forms may present to clinical allergists, whereas the more chronic forms may present to ophthalmologists. Thus, in the second of this 2-part review series (Part I: Ocular Immunology appeared in the November issue of the Journal), an overview is provided of the spectrum of ocular allergy that ranges from acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis to chronic variants of atopic keratoconjunctivitis. With a better understanding of the immunologic mechanisms, we now can develop better treatment approaches and design further research in intervention of allergic eye diseases.

Sedation and antihistamines: a review of inter-drug differences using proportional impairment ratios

The use of antihistamines (AHs) has until recently been associated with a number of undesirable side effects, the most troublesome of which is sedation. There are two aspects to sedation. The first, an objectively determined measure based on the results of psychometric tests from controlled trials, and the second, the subject's response to the administration of a drug. Since AHs are largely used in ambulant patients, a complete evaluation of sedation should be performed through standardised objective and subjective tests, shown to be sensitive to the central effects of AHs.An extensive review of the literature identified 76 studies of H(1) receptor antagonists in healthy volunteers, in which assessment of sedation was the primary objective. Results from studies published in peer-reviewed journals which employed a placebo condition as well as a positive internal control using a crossover design were analysed to determine the extent to which a particular antihistamine produced impairments on a battery of psychometric tests. The impairment index for each antihistamine was calculated and subsequently compared with the impairment index obtained for all other AHs.The calculation of this proportional impairment ratio enabled the sedative potential of an individual antihistamine to be identified relative to all other AHs and thus allowed the ranking of AHs with respect to their ability to cause impairments of cognitive and psychomotor function.Findings from this review clearly demonstrate that there are distinct classes of AHs with respect to their ability to impair cognitive function and psychomotor performance. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Executive summary

Allergic rhinitis is now recognized as a major cause of morbidity that significantly impairs function and quality of life. Moreover, it is now widely held that the pathophysiologic mechanisms causing nasal allergy contribute, or predispose many individuals, to the development of other airway diseases, including asthma. Allergic rhinitis may well be a factor in 24% of children with otitis media with effusion (OME), and perhaps 28% of cases of chronic sinusitis. As many as 78% of persons with asthma aged 15 to 30 years have elevated serum IgE antibodies to five common aeroallergens. In many instances, nasal allergy signals the presence of more severe disease.

Considerable evidence now suggests that early and appropriate intervention can improve the quality of life and productivity of patients with allergic rhinitis, enhance the academic performance of children, and reduce the prevalence of airway complications. The goal of treatment has shifted from mere symptom alleviation to blocking the pathophysiologic mechanisms that cause chronic allergic inflammation and leave patients vulnerable to airway infections. The earlier in a patient's life that this can be accomplished, the better the anticipated consequences.

A panel of experts was convened in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, on 2 September 1996, to explore these issues and their impact on allergy prevention and treatment in primary care. Their undertaking was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Schering‐Plough Pharmaceuticals.

Antihistamines: topical vs oral administration

The pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis is complex, involving not only histamine and mast cell-derived tryptase, but also eosinophil- and neutrophil-derived mediators, cytokines, and intercellular cell adhesion molecules (ICAM-1). It is surprising that antihistamines, which block only one component of the process, have proved so effective in the management of allergic rhinitis. Research has therefore focused on whether antihistamines have additional pharmacological activities. In vitro studies have shown that high concentrations of second generation antihistamines can block inflammatory mediator release from basophils and mast cells, and reduce ICAM-1 expression in epithelial cell lines. In vivo studies have also shown an effect on the allergen-induced inflammatory reaction; both oral and intranasal antihistamines cause a reduction in nasal symptoms and inflammatory cell influx. Oral terfenadine and cetirizine and intranasal levocabastine and azelastine have also demonstrated a lowering of ICAM-1 expression on epithelial cells. With regard to clinical efficacy, topical levocabastine (0.5 mg/mL eye drop solution and 0.5 mg/mL nasal spray) was shown to be more effective than oral terfenadine (60 mg twice daily) in relieving ocular itch (P = 0.02) and reducing nasal symptoms in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In a further study, levocabastine eye drops were as effective and well tolerated as sodium cromoglycate in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Intranasal azelastine (0.28 mg twice daily) showed a trend for superior relief of rhinorrhoea and nasal obstruction compared with oral terfenadine (60 mg twice daily). In addition, intranasal azelastine (0.28 mg twice daily) resulted in significant reductions in sneezing, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea and itching in perennial rhinitis, compared with the lower efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate (0.1 mg twice daily). As well as benefits in efficacy, topical administration is associated with improved safety. Some antihistamines, particularly those metabolized in the liver, are associated with occasional reports of severe side-effects. It is therefore logical to administer antihistamines directly to the target organ.