Treatment of allergic conjunctivitis with bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%

Efficacy and Toxicity Evaluation of Bepotastine Besilate 1.5% Preservative-Free Eye Drops Vs Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.2% Bak-Preserved Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

Purpose

To study the efficacy and toxic effects of bepotastine besilate 1.5% preservative-free (BB-PF) and olopatadine 0.2% BAK-preserved (OL-BAK) drops on the ocular surface of patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

Patients and Methods

Ninety-seven patients with allergic conjunctivitis diagnosis participated in a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients received either BB-PF (n=48) or OL-BAK (n=49), both administered once daily in the morning. The patients were followed for 60 days. Ocular itching was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included ocular symptoms, signs, and non-ocular symptoms associated with rhinoconjunctivitis. Conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) was performed to evaluate histopathological changes related to the toxic effects of preservatives.

Results

BB-PF treatment was associated with a 1.30 more probability of diminished ocular itching than OL-BAK (odds ratio (OR)=1.30; 95% CI=(0.96-1.7); p=0.086). No statistically significant differences were found between treatments in the resolution of other ocular symptoms or signs, except for tearing, which was superior in the BB-PF (OR=1.37; 95% (1.26-1.47); p<0.0001). BB-PF was superior in terms of the resolution of rhinorrhea (p=0.040) and nasal itching (p=0.037). After 60 days of treatment, the BB-PF group exhibited 2.0 times higher probability of having a lower Nelson scale score compared to the OL-BAK group (OR=2.00; 95% CI=(1.19-3.34); p=0.010).

Conclusion

Both medications presented a similar efficacy in terms of the resolution of ocular signs and symptoms associated with ocular conjunctivitis. BB-PF is superior in the resolution of non-ocular symptoms and safer for the ocular surface than OL-BAK.

An Investigator-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Effectiveness, Safety of Levocetirizine and Bepotastine in Chronic Urticaria

Introduction:

Chronic urticaria is common and distressing dermatosis where the search for newer agents with improved effectiveness and tolerability profile is a felt need. Bepotastine, a second-generation antihistamine, with added effect on suppression of eosinophil migration has a prospect in the management of chronic urticaria.

Aims:

To assess and compare effectiveness and safety of bepotastine versus levocetirizine in chronic urticaria.

Materials and Methods:

Single-center, investigator-blind, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group phase IV trial (CTRI REF/2018/04/019692) conducted on adult patients of chronic urticaria of either sex. Patients were randomized into receiving either bepotastine besilate 10 mg tablet twice daily or levocetirizine 5 mg tablet once daily with fortnightly follow-up for 6 follow-up visits after thebaseline evaluation. The primary outcome measures were Urticaria Activity Score 7 (UAS7) and Urticaria Total Severity Score (TSS). Routine hematological, biochemical tests, treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored for safety.

Results:

Thirty patients in the bepotastine group and 29 patients in the levocetirizine group were analyzed by modified-intention-to-treat criteria. The study groups were comparable at the baseline with respect to the severity of chronic urticaria. UAS7 and TSS reduced significantly (P < 0.001, Friedman's ANOVA) in both treatment groups from 1^st follow-up visit and 2^nd follow-up visits (P < 0.05, Post Hoc Dunn's test) At the test-of-cure visit, UAS7 (5.13 ± 8.21 vs 7.48 ± 8.96) and TSS (5.10 ± 4.06 vs 7.07 ± 4.48) were less with bepotastine than levocetirizine although not statistically significant (P = 0.188 and 0.073, respectively, Mann–Whitney U test). Sedation during daytime was found to be significantly more (P < 0.001, Fischer's exact test) with levocetirizine than bepotastine (73.3% vs 17.2%).

Conclusion:

Bepotastine is comparable to levocetirizine with respect to its effectiveness with an edge in terms of side-effect (sedation during day time); thus, it offers a new therapeutic option in chronic urticaria.

Observer-masked trial comparing efficacy of topical olopatadine (0.1%), bepotastine (1.5%), and alcaftadine (0.25%) in mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis

Purpose:

With increasing environmental pollution, the incidence of allergic conjunctivitis is increasing. Newer anti-allergic medications with combined anti-histaminic and mast cell stabilization action can help reducing the use of topical steroids for milder form of disease. There is no study directly comparing olopatadine (0.1%), bepotastine (1.5%), and alcaftadine (0.25%) for mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis cases. Hence, we decided to methodically study the efficacy of three topical medications.

Methods:

Prospective, observer-masked clinical trial enrolled 45 patients with 15 patients in each of the three groups. Patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis were sequentially assigned to respective groups, and relief of symptoms and signs were noted upto 1-month follow-up.

Results:

All three topical medications faired almost equally in resolving symptoms of the patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis, and most of them reported complete relief after 1 week of use of medication. Few cases with limbal or palpebral papillae reported symptomatic relief after use of medication, but the resolution of these signs was not noted in all three groups.

Conclusion:

We concluded similar efficacy of three medications in relieving symptoms and inefficacy in regressing palpebral and limbal papillae in cases of allergic conjunctivitis.

Comparison of cytotoxicities and anti-allergic effects of topical ocular dual-action anti-allergic agents

Background

To investigate the cytotoxicities of the topical ocular dual-action anti-allergic agents (alcaftadine 0.25%, bepotastine besilate 1.5%, and olopatadine HCL 0.1%) on human corneal epithelial cells (HCECs) and their anti-allergic effects on cultured conjunctival epithelial cells.

Methods

A Methylthiazolyltetrazolium(MTT)-based calorimetric assay was used to assess cytotoxicities using HCECs at concentrations of 10, 20 or 30% for exposure durations of 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 12 h or 24 h. Cellular morphologies were evaluated by inverted phase-contrast and electron microscopy. Wound widths were measured 2 h, 18 h, or 24 h after confluent HCECs monolayers were scratched. Realtime PCR was used to quantify anti-allergic effects on cultured human conjunctival cells, in which allergic reactions were induced by treating them with Aspergillus antigen.

Results

Cell viabilities decreased in time- and concentration-dependent manners. Cells were detached from dishes and showed microvilli loss, cytoplasmic vacuoles, and nuclear condensation when exposed to antiallergic agents; alcaftadine was found to be least cytotoxic. Alcaftadine treated HCECs monolayers showed the best wound healing followed by bepotastine and olopatadine (p < 0.0001). All agents significantly reduced the gene expressions of allergic cytokines (IL-5, IL-25, eotaxin, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin) and alcaftadine had the greatest effect (p < 0.0001 in all cases).

Conclusions

Alcaftadine seems to have less side effects and better therapeutic effects than the other two anti-allergic agents tested. It may be more beneficial to use less toxic agents for patients with ocular surface risk factors or presumed symptoms of toxicity.

Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5% for alleviating nasal symptoms in patients with allergic conjunctivitis

Background

Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution (BBOS) 1.5% is a topical antihistamine for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis (AC). Allergic rhinitis and AC are common comorbid conditions. We explored the efficacy of BBOS 1.5% in alleviating nasal symptoms in an integrated analysis of two Phase III conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies and a Phase IV environmental allergen study.

Methods

In the Phase III trials, a CAC was performed 15 minutes, 8 hours, and 16 hours following ocular instillation of BBOS 1.5% (n=78) or placebo (n=79), and subjects evaluated nasal symptoms. In the environmental study, subjects instilled BBOS 1.5% (n=123) or placebo (n=122) twice daily and nasal symptoms were evaluated over 2 weeks.

Results

In the Phase III trials, BBOS 1.5% had reduced CAC-induced nasal congestion and pruritus at 15 minutes and 8 hours postdosing and rhinorrhea and a non-ocular composite-symptom score (sum of nasal scores plus ear or palate pruritus) at all time points postdosing (all P≤0.01 vs placebo). In the Phase IV environmental study, BBOS 1.5% reduced sneezing and nasal pruritus over 2 weeks and median number of days to improvement of nasal pruritus and total nasal symptom score (sum for rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal pruritus, and nasal congestion; P≤0.04 vs placebo). Additionally, investigator-reported improvement in overall ocular (pruritus, hyperemia, tearing) and nasal symptoms was greater with BBOS 1.5% vs placebo (P≤0.03).

Conclusion

Results of these exploratory analyses indicate that topical ocular BBOS 1.5% reduced nasal symptoms, supporting its use for alleviating rhinitis symptoms associated with AC.

Ocular itch associated with allergic conjunctivitis: latest evidence and clinical management

Allergic conjunctivitis is one of the most common allergic conditions worldwide. Its incidence is increasing due to changing climate, pollution, increased pollen loads, and the subject's heightened immunological sensitivity in response to these environmental changes. The pathophysiology predominantly involves immunoglobulin E-related mast-cell activation, with release of histamine and other mediators contributing to the propagation of the response by calling in other immune cells and further inflammation. This article presents the evolution of ocular allergy treatments, from vasoconstrictors, to antihistamines and mast-cell stabilizers, to the dual-acting agents, as well as corticosteroid and immunomodulatory options. Future targets for allergy treatment are also discussed.