Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of topical levocabastine and sodium cromoglycate in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in children

Double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study comparing olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution with cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that >50% of medications have not been tested in children. Physicians need pediatric data to guide them in treating children. Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% is a topical antiallergic agent that is both an antihistamine with high affinity and selectivity for the histamine H1 receptor and a mast cell stabilizer that inhibits the release of histamine and other proinflammatory mediators from human conjunctival mast cells. The efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine has been demonstrated by comparative studies in adults and children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC).

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric patient data were extracted from 2 clinical trials to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% compared with those of cromolyn sodium ophthalmic solution 2% and levocabastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% as treatment for SAC in children.

METHODS

In study 1, conducted at 15 centers in 7 countries (Europe and Australia) from October 1995 to December 1997, olopatadine was instilled BID and placebo (vehicle) BID for 6 weeks and compared with cromolyn instilled QID. Study 2, conducted at 17 centers in 8 countries (Europe and Australia) from November 1998 to June 2000, compared olopatadine BID with levocabastine BID. In both studies, children of either sex and any race, aged 4 to 11 years, and having proven grass pollen allergies were assigned to treatment in a double-masked, randomized fashion. Slit-lamp examination, the physician's impression scale, and self-ratings were used to obtain efficacy data. Data analyses were based on pollen concentrations. The tolerability assessments were based on visual acuity, pupil diameter, intraocular pressure, and a dilated fundus examination.

RESULTS

Study 1 comprised 30 children (olopatadine [n = 13] and cromolyn sodium [n = 17]; 18 boys, 12 girls; mean age, 7.9 years [range, 4-11 years]). Study 2 comprised 22 children (olopatadine [n = 10] and levocabastine [n = 12]; 12 boys, 10 girls; mean age, 8.6 years [range, 5-11 years]). In study 1, ocular itching (P = 0.010), redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.003), and eyelid swelling (P = 0.034) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than with cromolyn sodium during the peak pollen period. In study 2, redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.040) and self-rated ocular redness (P = 0.024) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than levocabastine during the peak pollen period. Olopatadine was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% was more effective than both cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in controlling ocular signs and symptoms of SAC in children and was well tolerated when administered twice daily for 6 weeks.

Levocabastine eye drops are effective and well tolerated for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in children

This open-label, prospective, multicentre, 4-week trial was undertaken to assess the efficacy and tolerability of twice daily levocabastine eye drops (0.5 mg/ml), with sodium cromoglycate nasal spray for the relief of concurrent nasal symptoms if required, in a total of 233 children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. No correlation between efficacy, tolerability and age was found. Investigator assessments revealed that the total severity of ocular symptoms decreased by 84 +/- 34% in patients < 12 years and 85 +/- 30% in those >/= 12 years, with corresponding reductions in the total severity of ocular findings of 84% in both patient groups over the 4-week treatment period. Global assessments of therapeutic efficacy revealed the effect of therapy on ocular symptoms to be excellent or good in 81% of patients < 12 years and 82% of those >/= 12 years after 2 weeks of treatment, with corresponding values at the end of the trial of 88% and 82% in the two groups, respectively. Treatment tolerability was considered to be excellent or good by 94% of patients overall. Application site reactions were the most common adverse event associated with ocular levocabastine, occurring in 13% of patients < 12 years and 9% of those >/= 12 years. Twice daily levocabastine eye drops therefore appear to be effective and well tolerated for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in children.

Treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a review of the role of topical levocabastine

Lcocabastine is an extremely potent and highly selective H(1)-receptor antagonist which has been specifically developed as eye drops and nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Clinical experience to date suggests that this topical antihistamine is at least as effective as other current first-line therapeutic approaches for the treatment of this condition, including oral H(1)-receptor antagonists and sodium cromoglycate. Onset of action is rapid, with clinical effects apparent within minutes of instillation. Moreover, duration of action is sufficiently long to permit a convenient twice-daily dosing regimen. Topical levocabastine is well tolerated with an adverse-effect profile comparable with that of placebo and sodium cromoglycate. As might be expected from the route of drug administration, application site reactions are the most frequent adverse effect associated with levocabastine eye drops and nasal spray with an incidence comparable with that seen in placebotreated controls. The availability of effective and well-tolerated topical antihistamines, such as levocabastine, is an important advance which broadens the range of therapeutic approaches available for the clinical management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Levocabastine appears to be an attractive alternative to oral antihistamines as a first-line therapeutic option for the treatment of this atopic condition.

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.

Pediatric allergy medications: review of currently available formulations

BACKGROUND

Allergy affects about 50% of the pediatric population globally. Allergic rhinitis (AR), one form of allergy, causes considerable impairment in quality of life, including disruption of sleep and, in children, interference with school attendance and performance.

SCOPE

Traditional formulations and delivery systems - tablets, capsules, or intranasal sprays - successfully used by adults for treatment of AR may not be as easily administered in children. Liquid oral medications are more readily taken by children but contain sugars and excipients; they can also be inconvenient with less accurate dosing and are associated with dental caries and gastrointestinal upset.

METHODOLOGY

This review evaluated medications for treatment of AR currently available for pediatric patients and identified the attitudes of parents and health care professionals toward these medications. Guidelines from international organizations and governmental websites were reviewed for recommendations and product labeling requirements. A Medline search was conducted using the terms dyes, excipients, palatability, prescribing habits, sugar, among others.

FINDINGS

In recent years, governmental regulatory agencies and professional organizations in Europe and the United States have recommended avoidance of sugar in pediatric medicines and required stricter labeling of their ingredients. Public awareness about the adverse effects of sugar and some excipients has also increased, and parents more frequently express the desire for safer and more convenient medicines for their children. In response, more sugar-free, dye-free liquid medicines and other formulations, such as granules, filmstrips, chewable tablets, fast-dissolving tablets, and drops, are becoming available for pediatric use.

LIMITATIONS

Data from well-designed trials conducted in children for the treatment of AR are lacking. In addition, the possibility of a social response bias may exist for parents and physicians about sugar and other ingredients in children's medications.

CONCLUSION

Treatment for AR is often long-term, particularly in persistent AR; therefore, safety, tolerability, convenience, and patient/parental acceptance are important considerations when deciding which medication to prescribe.

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.

Corticosteroids in the treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis

The goal of treatment in pediatric allergic rhinitis is to provide effective prevention of or relief from allergic rhinitis symptoms as safely and effectively as possible. Removing or avoiding allergens is always advised; however, pharmacotherapy is often necessity. Pharmacologic options include systemic decongestants, which are associated with irritability and insomnia, particularly in children. Antihistamines are widely used; however, first-generation antihistamines are known to cause dry mouth and sedation. Oral corticosteroids are very effective but can have unwanted systemic effects. Over the past decade, intranasal corticosteroids have been shown to be the most effective form of pharmacologic treatment for allergic rhinitis. Data support the use of intranasal corticosteroids as first-line therapy over oral antihistamines; nonetheless, some clinicians have been reluctant to prescribe these agents, particularly for children, because of concerns for systemic effects. Overall, the newer corticosteroids, including mometasone furoate (MF), beclomethasone dipropionate, and budesonide have an improved risk-benefit ratio compared with older cortico-steroids and are now considered the drug of choice for pediatric allergic rhinitis. A good deal of evidence exists that confirms the lack of systemic effects from intranasal cortico-steroids. However, reports of decreased bone growth in children receiving intranasal budesonide short-term and beclomethasone dipropionate long-term have heightened concerns that some of these drugs may have systemic effects. A new intranasal corticosteroid, MF nasal spray, has been studied in children 3 to 12 years of age and has been shown to be effective. Intranasal MF is available with once-daily dosing, which has the potential to decrease systemic side effects.

Ocular allergy: causes and therapeutic options

Ocular allergic eye conditions are among the most common anterior eye problems encountered in optometric practice. There are six common forms of ocular allergy: seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, perennial allergic conjunctivitis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, contact lens associated papillary conjunctivitis and contact ocular allergy. Here, we review the current understanding of the pathophysiology underlying ocular allergic conditions and describe the different causes and forms of allergic eye disease and different treatment options.

[Antiallergy drugs and respiratory diseases in children]

Second generation antihistamines (anti H1) are effective for seasonal and perennial rhinoconjunctivitis curative or preventive treatment in children. They are better tolerated than first generation drugs. They probably do not act specifically against asthma itself, but are nevertheless useful for relief of nasal obstruction, which is an asthmogenic factor frequently linked with bronchial asthma. The therapeutic relevance of oral ketotifen and inhaled chromones (sodium cromoglycate, nedocromil sodium) is unequally considered among pediatricians. However, their efficacy has been clearly demonstrated as a ground treatment in mild-to-moderate asthmatic children. Chromones are also useful in preventing exercise-induced asthma. Because of their low cost and the lack of potential side effects, and according to the guidelines established in 1997 by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, they should be prescribed at first sight in these indications.