A comparison of olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution versus fluticasone furoate nasal spray for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available as oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications of olopatadine therapy focus on the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes. Areas covered: This article was created from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials of children and adults. The articles that have been selected, evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Expert opinion: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. It can function both as a viable alternative or addition to first line therapies such as intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines.

Topical Olopatadine in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of topical olopatadine versus placebo and other topical anti-allergic medications in treating allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for randomized-controlled trials that included patients with allergic conjunctivitis, compared olopatadine versus placebo or alternative anti-allergic medications, and examined itch, conjunctival hyperemia, composite symptom or sign scores, and/or occurrence of adverse events. We assessed the safety and efficacy of topical olopatadine when compared with placebo or alternative anti-allergic medications using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

When compared with placebo, topical olopatadine is associated with a pooled-mean difference (MD) in ocular itch of -1.33 (p < 0.00001) and ocular hyperemia of -0.92 (p < 0.00001). When compared with other agents, olopatadine was inferior to alcaftadine on ocular itch (pooled-MD = 0.39; p < 0.00001) but comparable with epinastine and ketotifen.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical olopatadine is a safe and effective treatment modality for allergic conjunctivitis, whereas alcaftadine appears to be superior to olopatadine in reducing ocular itch.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen-challenge model

Background

Symptom relief for the duration of 24 hours after treatment would benefit patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.77% with vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in a conjunctival allergen-challenge clinical study.

Patients and methods

In this Phase III, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized trial, patients with allergic conjunctivitis received olopatadine 0.77%, its vehicle, or olopatadine 0.2%, administered once at visits 3A (day 0), 4A (day 14 ±2), and 5 (day 21 +3). Allergic conjunctivitis-associated sign and symptom assessments included ocular itching, conjunctival redness, total redness, chemosis, and tearing scores. Adverse events and ocular safety parameters were also assessed.

Results

A total of 202 qualifying patients were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior (P<0.001) to vehicle for treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes postchallenge at onset of action and 16- and 24-hour duration of action. Conjunctival redness mean scores were significantly lower for olopatadine 0.77% versus vehicle at all three post-conjunctival allergen-challenge time points: onset (−1.52 to −1.48; P<0.001), 16 hours (−1.50 to −1.38; P<0.01), and 24 hours (−1.58 to −1.38; P<0.05). At 24 hours, olopatadine 0.77% was superior to olopatadine 0.2% at all three postchallenge time points for ocular itching (P<0.05), conjunctival redness (P<0.05), and total redness (P<0.05). No clinically relevant differences in safety parameters or adverse events were observed between the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Olopatadine 0.77% is superior to both its vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% for the treatment of allergen-mediated ocular itching and conjunctival redness. Ocular itching symptom relief is maintained over 24 hours, supporting once-daily dosing and demonstrating a comparable safety profile to olopatadine 0.2%.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; MP29-02 (a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) fills the gaps

INTRODUCTION

Effective pharmacologic treatment exists for most patients suffering from allergic rhinitis (AR). However, both in clinical trials and in real-life studies, many patients are dissatisfied with treatment. Physicians often use multiple therapies, in an attempt to improve symptom control, often with limited evidence of success. Novel treatment options are needed and must consider unmet medical needs.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the clinical data for a new AR treatment. MP29-02 (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) contains azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP), in a novel formulation and delivered in an improved device as a single nasal spray. It has shown superior efficacy in AR patients than either commercially available AZE or FP monotherapy for both nasal and ocular symptom relief, regardless of disease severity. MP29-02 also provided more effective and rapid symptom relief than either AZE or FP monotherapy delivered in the MP29-02 formulation and device. However, the effect was less than that observed versus commercial comparators, suggesting the impact of formulation and device on clinical efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

MP29-02 simplifies AR management, surpassing the efficacy of gold standard treatment, intranasal corticosteroids (INS), for the first time. It is indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis when monotherapy with either intranasal antihistamine or INS is NOT considered sufficient. Most patients present with moderate/severe disease, with evidence of current or previous treatment insufficiency. MP29-02 should be the treatment of choice for these patients.

Diagnosis and treatment of nasal and ocular allergies: the Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is managed by a number of health care professional specialties, whose practice styles may vary.

OBJECTIVE

To survey patients and health care professionals about the diagnosis and treatment of ARC.

METHODS

The Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys were telephone surveys of randomly selected patients and health care professionals in the United States in 2012. Participants were 2,765 people ever diagnosed as having nasal and/or ocular allergies and 500 practitioners in 7 specialties who were treating ARC.

RESULTS

Adult respondents to the patient survey reported that their allergies had been diagnosed most often by physicians in family practice (46%) rather than by allergists/immunologists (17%) or otolaryngologists (11%). Children's allergies had been diagnosed most often by pediatricians (41%) and family practitioners (22%). Most respondents with conditions diagnosed by an allergist/immunologist (94.9%) or otolaryngologist (62.7%) had been given an allergy test, but the test was not given to most patients with conditions diagnosed by family practitioners (61.3%) or pediatricians (64.9%). Most patients (75.8%) were treating their allergies with over-the-counter medications, and 53.5% were taking prescription medications. Allergen immunotherapy was being used by 33% (adult) or 28% (child) patients of allergist/immunologists, 25% (adult) or 24% (child) patients of otolaryngologists, and 8% and 10% of patients of family practitioners and pediatricians, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Most patients took nonprescription medications for their allergy symptoms or were treated by general practitioners, who did not use allergy testing when diagnosing ARC. Most patients seen by allergist/immunologists and otolaryngologists were evaluated with allergy tests, and most allergen immunotherapy was provided by allergy specialists.

Efficacy of mometasone furoate and fluticasone furoate on persistent allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis denotes both nasal and ocular manifestation of allergy, which may be solely treated with intranasal steroid. This study compares the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) and fluticasone furoate NS in treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The secondary objective is to study the severity of baseline ocular symptoms in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Seventy-eight patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were assessed subjectively and objectively using twice-daily symptom scores for nasal (reflective total nasal symptom score [rTNSS] and instantaneous TNSS [iTNSS]) and ocular (reflective total ocular symptom score [rTOSS] and instantaneous TOSS [iTOSS]) symptoms, rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaires (RQOLQs), and acoustic rhinometry. All measurements were taken at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Sixty-three patients who were randomized into the mometasone furoate group (n = 36) and the fluticasone furoate group (n = 27) completed the study. Seventy-six percent of patients had mild ocular symptoms, 20.5% had moderate symptoms, and only 2.6% had severe symptoms at baseline based on the iTOSS; 65.1% had mild nasal symptoms and 3% had severe nasal symptoms. There was significant reduction in the symptom scores after 1 week (p < 0.05). Both groups had significant improvement in RQOLQ scores after 1 month, which further improved at 2 months (p < 0.05). The nasal dimensions also improved in both groups (p < 0.05) but there was no statistically significant difference between groups. Both mometasone furoate and fluticasone furoate are effective as single-modality treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The majority of patients manifest mild ocular symptoms that may be solely treated with intranasal steroids.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of olopatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available in three forms, including oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications focus on the use of olopatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes.

AREAS COVERED

This article was formed from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, treatment guidelines and clinical studies on children and adults. Articles that have been selected evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis.

EXPERT OPINION

Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in alleviating the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. Olopatadine is a viable alternative and addition to the mainstay therapy of these conditions with intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines. The compliance of the patients would be improved if a once-per-day formulation of olopatadine was developed for intranasal application. The future treatments of allergic rhinitis will probably involve a combination of intranasal antihistamine and steroid because clinical trials have demonstrated an improved efficacy without a significant increase in adverse effects.

Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution for the relief of nonocular symptoms provoked by conjunctival allergen challenge

BACKGROUND

Bepotastine besilate is a selective histamine1-receptor antagonist and mast cell stabilizer with inhibitory effects on eosinophilic activity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1.5% bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution in alleviating nonocular symptoms induced by a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC), a clinical model of allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

This was a single-center, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial performed from March 1 to April 4, 2007. Patients 10 years or older with a history of allergic conjunctivitis and a reproducible, positive, clinical response to a CAC were eligible. Patients received either placebo or 1.5% bepotastine besilate, 1 drop in each eye. After 15 minutes, 8 hours, or 16 hours after dosing, a CAC was performed and patients evaluated nonocular symptoms using standardized grading scales.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were enrolled in the study, and 66 comprised the per protocol population. A clinically meaningful reduction (> or = 1.0 unit) compared to placebo was achieved for rhinorrhea and nasal congestion at most time points after 1.5% bepotastine besilate instillation at 8 hours before a CAC test. Significant reductions (P < or = .05) in mean values were seen with 1.5% bepotastine besilate at 15 minutes and 8 hours after dosing for CAC-induced nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, ear or palate pruritus, nasal pruritus, and summed nonocular composite symptom (NOCS) scores and also at 16 hours after dosing for nasal congestion and rhinorrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1.5% bepotastine besilate formulation produced statistically significant reductions after a CAC in individual nonocular symptoms and NOCS scores at onset of allergic response and for at least 8 hours after instillation, with the greatest reduction seen for nasal congestion and rhinorrhea.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), a potent intranasal corticosteroid with proved efficacy in relieving nasal allergic rhinitis symptoms, has demonstrated effectiveness in improving ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in retrospective analyses.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of MFNS in reducing total ocular symptom scores (TOSSs) and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

METHODS

Subjects 12 years or older (n = 429) with moderate-to-severe baseline symptoms were randomized to MFNS, 200 microg once daily, or placebo in this 15-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. Subjects evaluated morning instantaneous TOSSs and daily reflective TOSSs, total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs; both instantaneous TNSSs and reflective TNSSs, respectively), and individual ocular and nasal symptoms. Mean changes from baseline averaged over days 2 to 15 (instantaneous) and days 1 to 15 (reflective) were calculated. Quality of life was assessed by using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

MFNS treatment yielded significant reductions from baseline versus placebo in instantaneous TOSSs (-0.34, P = .026, coprimary end point), instantaneous TNSSs (-0.88, P < .001, coprimary end point), reflective TOSSs (-0.44, P = .005), and reflective TNSSs (-1.06, P < .001). Significant decreases in all individual reflective ocular symptoms and instantaneous eye itching/burning and eye watering/tearing were observed for MFNS versus placebo (P < .05). Numeric improvements in instantaneous eye redness were seen but did not reach statistical significance. Improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire total scores and individual symptom domains were achieved with MFNS treatment versus placebo (P < .001). MFNS was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study demonstrates that MFNS significantly reduces ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

Although nasal allergy has been prominent in allergy research, ocular allergy is increasingly recognized as a distinct symptom complex that imposes its own disease burden and reduction in patients' quality of life. In the past year, knowledge of the relationships between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis has increased. Allergic conjunctivitis is highly prevalent and has a close epidemiologic relationship with allergic rhinitis. Both conditions also exhibit similar pathophysiologic mechanisms. Pathways of communication are thought to increase the likelihood of an inflammatory reaction at both sites following allergen exposure of nasal or ocular tissue. Clinical trials of intranasal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis. Newer intranasal steroids decrease ocular symptoms, potentially achieving efficacy by suppressing the naso-ocular reflex, downregulation of inflammatory cell expression, or restoration of nasolacrimal duct patency. Proposed pathophysiologic interactions between allergic rhinitis and ocular allergy underscore the need for therapies with efficacy in both symptom sets.

The effect of intranasal administration of oxytocin on fear recognition

The oxytocinergic system has recently been placed amongst the most promising targets for various psychiatric treatments due to its role in prosocial behavior and anxiety reduction. Although recent studies have demonstrated a general effect of administration of oxytocin on emotion recognition, no study to date has examine the effect of oxytocin on each emotion separately. In the present study, a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design was used in a dynamic facial expression task, in order to assess the effects of administration of oxytocin on emotion recognition. A single dose of oxytocin or a placebo was administered intranasally to 27 healthy male subjects 45 min prior to task performance. The results showed that a single intranasal administration of oxytocin, as opposed to the placebo, improved the subjects' ability to recognize fear, but not other emotions. These results suggest a specific role for oxytocin in fear recognition, which could be relevant for clinical disorders that manifest deficits in processing emotional facial expressions, particularly fear.