Effect of azelastine on bronchoconstriction induced by histamine and leukotriene C4 in patients with extrinsic asthma

Evaluation of pharmacological relaxation effect of the natural product naringin on in vitro cultured airway smooth muscle cells and in vivo ovalbumin-induced asthma Balb/c mice

Asthma has become a common chronic respiratory disease worldwide and its prevalence is predicted to continue increasing in the next decade, particularly in developing countries. A key component in asthma therapy is to alleviate the excessive bronchial airway narrowing ultimately due to airway smooth muscle contraction, which is often facilitated by a smooth muscle relaxant, such as the β₂-adrenergic agonists. Recently, bitter taste receptor (TAS2R) agonists, including saccharin and chloroquine, have been found to potently relax the airway smooth muscle cells (ASMCs) via intracellular Ca²⁺ signaling. This inspires a great interest in screening the vast resource of natural bitter substances for potential bronchodilatory drugs. In the present study, the relaxation effect of naringin, a compound extracted from common grapefruit, on ASMCs cultured in vitro or bronchial airways of Balb/c mice in vivo was evaluated. The results demonstrated that, when exposed to increasing doses of naringin (0.125, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 mM), the traction force generated by the cultured ASMCs decreased progressively, while the intracellular calcium flux signaling in the ASMCs increased. When inhaled at increasing doses (15, 30 and 60 µg), naringin also dose-dependently reduced the bronchial airway resistance of the normal and ovalbumin-induced asthma Balb/c mice in response to challenge with methacholine. In conclusion, these findings indicate that naringin was able to effectively relax murine ASMCs in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting that it is a promising drug agent to be further investigated in the development of novel bronchodilators for the treatment of asthma.

Taste receptors in asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although today's cornerstone therapies for asthma (inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids) target airway narrowing and lung inflammation, about half of treated asthmatic patients do not achieve good disease control. There is a clear need for new therapeutic approaches and novel drug targets. Recent research has unexpectedly revealed that certain taste receptors (particularly those involved in bitter taste transduction) are expressed in lung tissue.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bitter taste receptors are expressed in several cell types in the lungs (such as chemosensory cells, epithelial cells, smooth muscle cells, lymphocytes, and macrophages) and variously involved in ciliary beating, muscle relaxation, and/or inhibition of the production of inflammatory mediators. Here, we review recent research on the role of bitter taste receptors in experimental models of asthma and in asthmatics.

SUMMARY

The currently available data suggest that bitter taste receptor agonists have therapeutic potential in chronic obstructive airway diseases such as asthma.

The emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in allergic rhinitis

Leukotriene modifiers have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of asthma. Because of this success, and the fact that leukotrienes can be recovered not only from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid but also nasal lavage fluid, some researchers have suggested that these medications may also be useful for treating allergic rhinitis. Because the upper and lower airways are linked physically, there has been an assumption that therapy for upper and lower airway disease should be similar. This critical appraisal examines available data both supporting and refuting the emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Although many studies have shown an improvement in nasal symptoms when comparing a leukotriene modifier with placebo, few studies have conclusively shown that a leukotriene modifier is any more effective in treating allergic rhinitis than an antihistamine. Results from several reported studies suggest that the addition of a leukotriene antagonist to an antihistamine is no more efficacious than antihistamine alone. However, many of these studies were small and/or primarily designed to examine the asthmatic response, with nasal symptoms being a lesser endpoint. To better understand how, where, and when leukotriene modifiers should be used in the armamentarium of therapies for allergic rhinitis, larger clinical investigations designed specifically to study allergic rhinitis need to be undertaken. We conclude that currently, the data do not support widespread use of a leukotriene modifier with or without an antihistamine in place of an intranasal corticosteroid with or without an antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

The role of leukotriene inhibitors in patients with paranasal sinus disease

Leukotrienes are inflammatory mediators that are known as the slow-reacting substance of anaphylaxis produced by a number of cell types including mast cells, eosinophils, basophils, macrophages, and monocytes. Synthesis of these mediators results from the cleavage of arachidonic acid in cell membranes, and they exert their biologic effects by binding and activating specific adaptors. This occurs in a series of events that lead to contraction of the human airway smooth muscle, chemotaxis, and increased vascular permeability. These effects have led to their important role in the diseases of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and possible paranasal sinusitis with the formation of nasal polyps. Because these agents lead to the production of symptoms in patients that are asthmatic, the use of leukotriene enzyme inhibitors, particularly montelukast, and zafirlukasts seem appropriate. These classes of drugs can block the binding of leukotrienes to CysLT(1) receptors. Zileuton is a 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor that prevents the formation of leukotrienes and can also result in the prevention of leukotriene activity. Demonstrated efficacy in these patients in a number of studies has also suggested their role in inhibiting nasal symptoms in asthmatic patients. In addition, it has been suggested by serendipitous observations that many of the aspirin-intolerant patients have nasal polyps and that treatment with the leukotriene inhibitors has resulted in improvement and resolution of the polyps. Therefore, these agents may also play a role in patients afflicted with chronic sinusitis with concomitant nasal polyposis. These papers are discussed in detail because this form of therapy may represent a novel way to treat patients with this malady in addition to or in lieu of surgical treatment and steroid therapy.

Biochemistry and physiology of the leukotrienes

Based on the studies that have used human subjects and materials, and a much larger body of data from animal and in vitro experiments, one can conclude that the LTs are potent bronchoconstrictors in normal and asthmatic subjects. A major part of their action is mediated directly via the cysLT-1 receptor on airway smooth muscle. There is also evidence for an effect on airway hyperresponsiveness probably via eosinophil recruitment and activation, airway edema, and possibly airway nerves. Taken together, these studies support a key role for the leukotrienes in asthma. However, additional studies are needed to further define their effects on the airway inflammatory response.

Clinical pharmacology of new histamine H1 receptor antagonists

The recently introduced H1 receptor antagonists ebastine, fexofenadine and mizolastine, and the relatively new H1 antagonists acrivastine, astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, levocabastine and loratadine, are diverse in terms of chemical structure and clinical pharmacology, although they have similar efficacy in the treatment of patients with allergic disorders. Acrivastine is characterised by a short terminal elimination half-life (t1/2 beta) [1.7 hours] and an 8-hour duration of action. Astemizole and its metabolites, in contrast, have relatively long terminal t1/2 beta values; astemizole has a duration of action of at least 24 hours and is characterised by a long-lasting residual action after a short course of treatment. Azelastine, which has a half-life of approximately 22 hours, is primarily administered intranasally although an oral dosage formulation is used in some countries. Cetirizine is eliminated largely unchanged in the urine, has a terminal t1/2 beta of approximately 7 hours and a duration of action of at least 24 hours. Ebastine is extensively and rapidly metabolised to its active metabolite; carebastine, has a half-life of approximately 15 hours and duration of action of at least 24 hours. Fexofenadine, eliminated largely unchanged in the faeces and urine, has a terminal t1/2 beta of approximately 14 hours and duration of action of 24 hours, making it suitable for once or twice daily administration. Levocabastine has a terminal t1/2 beta of 35 to 40 hours regardless of the route of administration, but is only available as a topical application administered intranasally or ophthalmically in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Loratadine is rapidly metabolised to an active metabolite descarboethoxyloratadine and has a 24-hour duration of action. Mizolastine has a terminal t1/2 beta of approximately 13 hours and duration of action of at least 24 hours. Most orally administered new H1 receptor antagonists are well absorbed and appear to be extensively distributed into body tissues; many are highly protein-bound. Most of the new H1 antagonists do not accumulate in tissues during repeated administration and have a residual action of less than 3 days after a short course has been completed. Tachyphylaxis, or loss of peripheral H1 receptor blocking activity during regular daily use, has not been found for any new H1 antagonist. Understanding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these new H1 antagonists provides the objective basis for selection of an appropriate dose and dosage interval and the rationale for modification in the dosage regimen that may be needed in special populations, including elderly patients, and those with hepatic dysfunction or renal dysfunction. The studies cited in this review provide the scientific foundation for using the new H1 antagonists with optimal effectiveness and safety.

Antihistamines in the treatment of asthma

Antihistamines were investigated for use in asthma shortly after discovery over fifty years ago. Earlier compounds proved ineffective because of side effects: this class of drugs was not thought useful for asthma, and were actually considered contraindicated. More recent drugs have greater potency, fewer side-effects, and no evidence of adverse effects in asthma. There are some studies showing second generation antihistamines, especially cetirizine, improve certain parameters of asthma.

Comparative efficacy of azelastine nasal spray and terfenadine in seasonal and perennial rhinitis

The efficacy and tolerability of intranasal azelastine (0.14 mg/nostril twice daily) and oral terfenadine (60 mg twice daily) were compared under double-blind conditions in two 6-week, multicenter, parallel-group studies, including 167 patients suffering from seasonal and 52 patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis. In both studies, patients were symptomatic on entry and showed significant improvement on both treatments within the first 8 d of therapy, showing little further improvement with continued treatment. Symptoms most pronounced on entry--nasal itching, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal obstruction--responded best to treatment (response rates 80-90%). Objective signs such as mucosal swelling and conjunctivitis improved in a manner parallel to symptoms. In perennial rhinitis, azelastine showed a trend to a superior relief of rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction, whereas terfenadine showed a trend toward better control of sneezing and nasal itchiness. No clinically relevant or statistically significant differences between treatments could be identified. The incidence of adverse effects of possible causal relationship to therapy was low. The most frequent effects in azelastine-treated patients were related to application site disorders, e.g., nasal irritation. Results indicate that with the dose used azelastine nasal spray is an effective treatment for both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis.

Clinical pharmacology of asthma. Implications for treatment

The past 10 years have seen three important changes in the philosophy of managing asthma. First, histological studies using fibreoptic bronchoscopy have led to the recognition that asthma is an inflammatory condition of the bronchial mucosa and is not simply caused by smooth muscle spasm. Secondly, there has been some disenchantment with the long term use of regular beta 2-adrenergic agonists as these agents do not appear to control bronchial inflammation and have been associated with deaths from asthma. Thirdly, there has been a general shift away from physician-centred management towards patient-oriented management plans. These three separate strands have led to the development of regional and international consensus documents that emphasise the use of regular anti-inflammatory treatment to control bronchial inflammation and reduce symptoms. With the emphasis on finding the minimum amount of treatment, several traditional anti-asthma medications have been downgraded in importance. The introduction of self-management plans is to be welcomed, but it is important that these new strategies for treating asthma are properly evaluated so that the benefits they confer can be ascertained and maximised.

Effect of cetirizine, a potent H1 antagonist, on platelet activating factor induced bronchoconstriction in asthma

Effect of cetirizine, a potent and specific H1 receptor antagonist, was examined on platelet activating factor-induced bronchoconstriction in 10 patients (5 male, mean [s.e.m.] aged 37.4 [3.6] years) with mild asthma in a placebo controlled, double-blind cross-over study. Airway responses were assessed by measuring specific airway conductance (SGaw). Patients were challenged with a single dose (12-96 micrograms) of PAF that had previously produced a 35% fall in SGaw. PAF challenges were performed after single dose (15 mg) and 1 week's treatment (15 mg twice daily) of cetirizine. There was no significant difference in pre- and post-treatment baseline values of SGaw on different study days and the percentage changes after cetirizine were 38.7 (7.01) and 45.6 (5.52) compared to 50.2 (2.89) and 43.9 (7.26) with placebo respectively. Similarly mean (s.e.m.) area under curve (AUC-SGaw/time course response) was 391 (143) and 514 (85) with cetirizine compared to 565 (37) and 461 (94) with placebo respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. There was no difference in facial flushing and feeling of warmth between cetirizine and placebo. We conclude that PAF induced bronchoconstriction in humans is not mediated by histamine release and that H1 receptor antagonists do not modify PAF induced bronchoconstriction.

Effect of azelastine and ketotifen on the bronchial and skin responses to platelet-activating factor in humans

In a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study we investigated the effect of single oral doses of 8 mg azelastine and 2 mg ketotifen on the immediate response to platelet-activating factor (PAF) inhalation and to increasing doses of PAF injected intradermally. Bronchial provocation with 100 micrograms of PAF resulted in marked bronchoconstrictor responses, but neither azelastine nor ketotifen had any significant effect on these responses. Intradermal injection of PAF (100, 200 and 400 ng) resulted in a dose-related weal and flare response. Azelastine and ketotifen both caused significant reductions in this response (P less than 0.002-P less than 0.01). There was no significant difference between the effect of the two drugs.

Lack of dose-response effect of terfenadine on resting bronchomotor tone in patients with asthma

Bronchodilatation data from three, four-period cross-over studies were combined to assess the effect of oral terfenadine 60, 120, 180 mg and placebo on the airways of 26 patients with atopic asthma. Meta-analysis of these data showed that mean changes in FEV1 from pre-dose to 4 hr were 11.4, 14.6 and 11.8% for the three doses of terfenadine, respectively, and -2.9% for placebo. There was a significant treatment effect (P = 0.0001) but no effect of dose. Terfenadine, a non-sedating histamine H1-receptor antagonist, caused bronchodilatation in a single dose. Whether this effect is sustained with long-term treatment requires further investigation.

Effect of cetirizine on histamine- and leukotriene D4-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with atopic asthma

Cetirizine, a derivative of hydroxyzine, is a new compound with potent antihistaminic property without antiserotonin and anticholinergic activities. The effect of both a single dose (15 mg) and 7 days of treatment (15 mg twice daily) with cetirizine, a potent H1 antagonist on bronchoconstriction induced by histamine and leukotriene D4 (LTD4) has been examined in 10 patients with mild atopic asthma in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study. Cetirizine, after a single dose and 7 days of treatment with placebo, the geometric mean values of the provocative concentration of histamine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (millimolars) were 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 3.11) and 1.67 (0.77 to 3.65), compared with 118.07 (77.22 to 180.54) (p less than 0.0001) and 53.16 (20.50 to 137.84) after cetirizine administration (p less than 0.0002). The mean inhibition after a single dose was twofold higher than after 1 week of treatment (p less than 0.05). After a single dose and 7 days of treatment with placebo, the geometric mean values of the provocative concentration of LTD4 causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (micromolars) were 2.26 (1.74 to 2.94) and 2.37 (1.77 to 3.17), compared with 3.90 (2.60 to 5.86) (p less than 0.05) and 3.21 (2.28 to 4.52) after cetirizine administration. This result suggests that cetirizine is a potent H1 antagonist in the human airways. Diminished activity after 1 week of treatment suggests subsensitivity of H1 receptors developing in human airways. The small protective effect after a single dose against LTD4-induced bronchoconstriction indicates a nonspecific rather than a specific receptor antagonism.

Azelastine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential

Azelastine is an antiallergic agent which demonstrates histamine H1-receptor antagonist activity and also inhibits histamine release from mast cells following antigen and non-antigen stimuli. Azelastine antagonises histamine- and leukotriene-induced bronchospasm in animal studies and reduces airway responsiveness to inhaled antigen or distilled water, and exercise challenge. In comparative studies, orally administered azelastine in doses up to 4 mg/day consistently relieved symptoms in patients with seasonal or perennial rhinitis - comparable to inhaled sodium cromoglycate (cromolyn sodium) 80 mg/day, oral chlorpheniramine (chlorphenamine) and oral terfenadine 120 mg/day. In addition, azelastine administered as an intranasal spray was as effective as oral terfenadine 120 mg/day and intranasal budesonide 0.4 mg/day in alleviating symptoms of rhinitis. Azelastine is also a potent antiasthmatic agent which produces significant and long lasting bronchodilation in patients with bronchial asthma. The drug is superior to placebo and comparable to oral ketotifen 2 mg/day and sustained release theophylline 700 mg/day when administered as a twice daily oral 4 mg dose. Azelastine is generally well tolerated: the most common adverse effects are altered taste perception and drowsiness. Adverse effects are mild and transient and result in withdrawal of treatment in less than 2% of patients. In a comparative study oral azelastine 2 or 4 mg/day produced no more sedation than terfenadine 120 mg/day. Thus, barring unexpected findings with wider clinical use, azelastine offers an effective and well tolerated choice of treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma, which may be particularly beneficial in patients in whom inhaled drug treatment is contraindicated.