Olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution: the first ophthalmic antiallergy agent with once-daily dosing

A Randomized, Multicenter Phase 3 Clinical Trial Evaluating Intracanalicular Dexamethasone Insert for the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a dexamethasone intracanalicular insert (DEX) for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis (AC).

Patients and Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, adults (≥18 years) with AC were randomized 1:1 to DEX or placebo insert (PBO) placed bilaterally. Subjects underwent repetitive conjunctival allergen challenges (CAC) across 30 days and were assessed for changes in AC signs and symptoms. The primary endpoint was ocular itching score at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-CAC at Day 8 (7 days post-insertion). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04050865).

Results

Ninety-six subjects were randomized (n=48 DEX, n=48 PBO). Compared to PBO, there were statistically significant treatment differences favoring DEX for the primary endpoint of mean ocular itching score at Day 8 (-0.86, -0.98, -0.96 at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-CAC respectively; P<0.0001 for all). Treatment differences favored DEX for all 24 time points across 6 visits and were statistically significant (P<0.05) except for the first post-insertion (Day 7, 3 minutes). For the 18 time points at which conjunctival redness was assessed, DEX had lower scores than PBO (P<0.05 for all). The most common ocular adverse events (AEs) in DEX subjects were eye discharge and irritation. No serious AEs, elevated intraocular pressure, dacryocanaliculitis, or use of rescue medications were reported.

Conclusion

Results of this study support the potential use of dexamethasone insert as a physician-administered, preservative-free treatment for AC, with significant improvements in ocular itching and conjunctival redness compared with placebo. The dexamethasone insert was generally safe with a favorable safety profile.

Phase 3 Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of a Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in Patients With Allergic Conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a dexamethasone intracanalicular ocular insert for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trial.

METHODS

Subjects with allergic conjunctivitis were randomized 1:1 to receive a dexamethasone insert or a placebo insert in both eyes and were evaluated using a modified version of the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. After inserts were placed in office, a series of 4 closely spaced post-insertion CACs were conducted at weeks 1, 2, and 4 across approximately 30 days. Primary efficacy endpoints, assessed at week-1 CAC-day 8, were reported by subjects of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post CAC and investigator-evaluated conjunctival redness at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post CAC.

RESULTS

For the primary endpoints, dexamethasone inserts showed statistically significantly lower mean ocular itching scores than placebo at all time points (P <.001), with differences favoring dexamethasone inserts over placebo (0.86, 0.98, and 0.96 units at 3, 5, and 7 minutes, respectively) and statistically significantly lower conjunctival redness scores at 20 minutes (P <.05) but not at 7 or 15 minutes (P ≥.05). Results also showed statistically significantly less itching and conjunctival redness at 31 and 29 of 33 other time points, respectively (P <.05). There were no serious adverse events; 1 subject had elevated intraocular pressure in both eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Data presented in this study demonstrate the potential for a single, physician-administered dexamethasone intracanalicular insert to provide relief of ocular itching for up to 4 weeks in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

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.

Novel Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone-Loaded Olopatadine HCl-Laden Doughnut Contact Lens to Treat Allergic Conjunctivitis

Olopatadine HCl is an antiallergic drug used for the management of allergic conjunctivitis. Currently, it is delivered via eye drop solution, which is highly inefficient due to low bioavailability. Silicone contact lenses can be used to sustain the release of ophthalmic drugs. However, the presence of drug alters the optical transmittance and physical properties of the contact lens. The objective was to design a novel polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP)-coated olopatadine-ethyl cellulose microparticles-laden doughnut contact lens to sustained ocular delivery with limited alteration to the optical and swelling properties of the contact lens. The doughnut was implanted within the periphery of the lens using modified casting technique. Olopatadine HCl was loaded by soaking (SM-OL), direct loading (DL-OL), and doughnut casting method (DNT-OL). PVP (comfort agent) was loaded on the surface of contact lens for all the batches via novel curing technique. The in vitro olopatadine HCl release data of SM-OL (up to 48-72 h) and DL-OL batches (up to 72 h) showed high burst release, whereas DNT-OL batch showed sustained release up to 120 h without significant (p > 0.05) alteration in the optical and swelling properties of contact lens. All the batches showed sustained release of PVP up to 120 h. The in vivo studies in the rabbit tear fluid showed improvement in the olopatadine HCl and PVP retention time in comparison to eye drop solution. The PVP-loaded DNT-OL-500 lens showed tear stabilization (comfort wear) in Schirmer strip test (rabbits) with no protein adherence in comparison to DNT-OL-500 lens without PVP. The study demonstrated the successful delivery of olopatadine HCl and PVP-K30 from the doughnut contact lens for the extended period with limited alteration to the optical and swelling properties of contact lens.

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.

Projected 24-hour post-dose ocular itching scores post-treatment with olopatadine 0.7% versus 0.2

Olopatadine is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer used for treating allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine 0.7% has been recently approved for daily dosing in the US, which supersedes the previously approved 0.2% strength. The objective of this analysis was to characterize patients who have better itching relief at 24 h when taking olopatadine 0.7% treatment instead of olopatadine 0.2% (in terms of proportions of responses) and relate this to the severity of baseline itching as an indirect metric of a patient’s sensitivity to antihistamines. A differential odds model was developed using data from two conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies to characterize individual-level and population-level response to ocular itching following olopatadine treatment and the data was analyzed retrospectively. This modeling analysis was designed to predict 24 h ocular itching scores and to quantify the differences in 24 h itching relief following treatment with olopatadine 0.2% versus 0.7% in patients with moderate-to-high baseline itching. A one-compartment kinetic-pharmacodynamic E_max model was used to determine the effect of olopatadine. Impact of baseline itching severity, vehicle effect and the drug effect on the overall itching scores post-treatment were explicitly incorporated in the model. The model quantified trends observed in the clinical data with regards to both mean scores and the proportions of patients responding to olopatadine treatment. The model predicts a higher proportion of patients in the olopatadine 0.7% versus 0.2% group will experience relief within 24 h. This prediction was confirmed with retrospective clinical data analysis. The number of allergy patients relieved with olopatadine 0.7% increased with higher baseline itching severity scores, when compared to olopatadine 0.2%.

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.

Treating allergic conjunctivitis: A once-daily medication that provides 24-hour symptom relief

BACKGROUND

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a common ocular inflammatory manifestation of allergen exposure in sensitized individuals. Signs and symptoms of AC can decrease quality of life, interfere with productivity, and lead to considerable economic burden. Consistent suppression of conjunctival inflammation is necessary for managing AC, but currently available medications require frequent administration and exhibit limited duration of action.

METHODS

In this review, we summarized AC pathogenesis, diagnosis, and current treatment options as well as their limitations. Findings from the literature were discussed in the context of the unmet need for a once-daily medication with sustained 24-hour effectiveness.

RESULTS

Topical pharmacologic treatments are the most common approach for managing extant AC; however, most available medications require multiple daily instillations. Dual-acting antihistamine-mast cell stabilizing agents are currently considered first-line therapeutics for AC because they provide acute relief of signs and symptoms and block persistent inflammation to promote regression of AC. Recent studies of a newly-developed, higher-concentration formulation of a dual-acting antihistamine-mast cell stabilizer have demonstrated that this formulation provides a 24-hour duration of action with once-daily dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-acting AC medications exhibit a high degree of overall effectiveness and are well tolerated for chronic use. A newly available once-daily medication that manages signs and symptoms of AC for a full 24 hours may be considered a treatment of choice for patients experiencing seasonal or perennial AC. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01743027 and NCT01479374.

Mast cell stabilisers

Mast cells play a critical role in type 1 hypersensitivity reactions. Indeed, mast cell mediators are implicated in many different conditions including allergic rhinitis, conjunctivitis, asthma, psoriasis, mastocytosis and the progression of many different cancers. Thus, there is intense interest in the development of agents which prevent mast cell mediator release or which inhibit the actions of such mediators once released into the environment of the cell. Much progress into the design of new agents has been made since the initial discovery of the mast cell stabilising properties of khellin from Ammi visnaga and the clinical approval of cromolyn sodium. This review critically examines the progress that has been made in the intervening years from the design of new agents that target a specific signalling event in the mast cell degranulation pathway to those agents which have been developed where the precise mechanism of action remains elusive. Particular emphasis is also placed on clinically used drugs for other indications that stabilise mast cells and how this additional action may be harnessed for their clinical use in disease processes where mast cells are implicated.

Allergic eye disease

Ocular allergy is one of the most common conditions encountered by pediatricians and ophthalmologists and is characterized by bilateral injection with itching as the predominant symptom. Risk factors include history of atopy (asthma, eczema, seasonal allergies). Basic and clinical research have provided insight into the immunologic mechanisms, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, and pharmacologicmanagement of this condition. New pharmacologic agents have improved the efficacy and safety of ocularallergy treatment. This article discusses the classification of ocular allergy diagnosis and management, and addresses clinical symptoms and signs that indicate more severe allergic disease or alternative diagnosis that should prompt expeditious referral to an ophthalmologist.

Difluprednate 0.05% versus prednisolone acetate 1% for endogenous anterior uveitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized study

PURPOSE

Endogenous anterior uveitis (AU), when untreated, may lead to vision loss. This study compared the safety and efficacy of difluprednate versus prednisolone acetate for the treatment of this condition.

METHODS

This phase III, double-masked, noninferiority study randomized patients with mild to moderate endogenous AU to receive difluprednate 0.05% (n = 56) four times daily, alternating with vehicle four times daily, or prednisolone acetate 1% (n = 54) eight times daily. The 14-day treatment period was followed by a 14-day dose-tapering period and a 14-day observation period. The primary efficacy end point was change in anterior chamber cell grade (range, 0 for ≤1 cell to 4 for >50 cells) from baseline to day 14.

RESULTS

At day 14, the mean change in anterior chamber cell grade with difluprednate was noninferior to that with prednisolone acetate (-2.2 vs. -2.0, P = 0.16). The proportions of difluprednate-treated patients versus prednisolone acetate-treated patients demonstrating complete clearing of anterior chamber cells at day 3 were 13.0% vs. 2.1% (P = 0.046) and at day 21 were 73.9% vs. 63.8% (P = 0.013). A significant between-group difference in the mean IOP increase was seen at day 3 (2.5 mm Hg for difluprednate-treated patients and 0.1 mm Hg for prednisolone acetate-treated patients, P = 0.0013) but not at other time points. The mean IOP values in both groups remained less than 21 mm Hg throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Difluprednate 0.05% four times daily is well tolerated and is noninferior to prednisolone acetate 1% eight times daily for the treatment of endogenous AU. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01201798.).

A multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and duration of action of alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% in the conjunctival allergen challenge model

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and duration of action of once-daily dosing with alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution as compared with placebo in the prevention of ocular itching, and to directly compare the efficacy of alcaftadine 0.25% with olopatadine 0.2% in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

Methods

Subjects with allergic conjunctivitis (n = 127) were enrolled in a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Using the conjunctival allergen challenge model, this study was conducted over the course of approximately 5 weeks. Subjects were randomized into one of three treatment arms: alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution, olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution, or placebo. Study medications were administered twice over the course of the trial. The primary efficacy measure for the study was ocular itching evaluated by the subject at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post challenge. Secondary endpoints, measured at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post challenge, included conjunctival, ciliary, and episcleral redness, lid swelling, chemosis, and tearing. Duration of action was measured at 16 and 24 hours post-instillation of the study medication at visits 3 and 4, respectively.

Results

For the primary measure of ocular itching, both actives, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, were statistically superior to placebo at all three measured time points for both the 16-hour and 24-hour measures (P < 0.0001). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% had numerically lower mean ocular itching scores than eyes treated with olopatadine 0.2% at every time point, and this difference was statistically significant at the 3-minute time point 16 hours post instillation (P = 0.026). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% and with olopatadine 0.2% displayed significantly less lid swelling relative to placebo at every time point for the 16-hour and 24-hour post-instillation visits (P < 0.005). Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only active treatment that provided statistically significant relief of chemosis at every time point of the 24-hour post-instillation visit.

Conclusion

Both the alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solutions provided highly effective relief of ocular itching at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Treatment differences between the actives were most pronounced at the earliest time point (3 minutes post-challenge) following conjunctival allergen challenge (16 hours), when alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was statistically superior to olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution. Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only treatment to provide significant relief from chemosis at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Both active treatments and placebo were generally safe and well tolerated.

Management of allergic conjunctivitis: an evaluation of the perceived comfort and therapeutic efficacy of olopatadine 0.2% and azelastine 0.05% from two prospective studies

PURPOSE

Results from 2 patient-reported outcome studies of allergic conjunctivitis sufferers who used olopatadine 0.2% and azelastine 0.05% are analyzed.

METHODS

The PACE (Pataday Allergic Conjunctivitis Evaluation) multi-center, prospective, open-label study examined patient perceptions of olopatadine 0.2% once daily (qd) and previous twice daily (bid) allergic conjunctivitis medications via questionnaire in allergic conjunctivitis sufferers who had previously used bid medication and then initiated olopatadine. A second conjunctival antigen challenge (CAC) study evaluated comfort of 4 allergic conjunctivitis medications.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients from the PACE study (N = 125) with prior azelastine use were examined. Significantly more patients rated themselves "very satisfied" with current olopatadine use compared with past azelastine use on drop comfort (p < 0.0001), speed of relief (p = 0.0004), and overall satisfaction (70% vs 16%, p < 0.0001). Significantly more patients reported olopatadine "very effective" against swelling compared with azelastine (47% vs 8%, p = 0.0404). In the CAC study (N = 36), data from olopatadine (n = 8), azelastine (n = 9) and placebo (N = 36) groups were reported. Olopatadine was rated significantly more comfortable than azelastine upon instillation (p = 0.0223), at 30 seconds (p = 0.0479), and at 1 minute after instillation (p = 0.0240).

CONCLUSION

In the reported studies, olopatadine 0.2% qd was more comfortable than azelastine 0.05% and preferred by patients with allergic conjunctivitis by a ratio of 4:1.