Assessment of the efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% in the treatment of vernal keratoconjunctivitis in terms of clinical improvement based on total ocular symptom score and ocular surface disease index.

Purpose: The main objective of this study is to explore the efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% treatment in the resolution of symptoms of vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) among the Indian population. Methods: This single-center, prospective cohort study involved 234 patients with VKC. Patients were treated with olopatadine 0.1%, twice daily for a period of 12 weeks and then followed up in 1st week, 4th week, 3rd month, and 6th month. The extent of relief in the symptoms of VKC was measured using total ocular symptom score (TOSS) and ocular surface disease index (OSDI). Results: In the present study, the dropout rate was 5.6%. Total of 136 males and 85 females with a mean age of 37.68 ± 11.35 years completed the study. TOSS score reduced from 58.85 to 5.06 and the OSDI score reduced from 75.41 to 11.2 with statistical significance (P < 0.01) from 1st week to 6th week after olopatadine 0.1% treatment. The data showed relief in subjective symptoms of itching, tearing, and redness, and relief in discomfort in functions related to ocular grittiness, visuals like reading, and environmental like tolerability in dry conditions. Further, olopatadine 0.1% was effective in both males and females, and patients across ages 18-70 years. Conclusion: Based on TOSS and OSDI scores, the findings of this study validate safety and tolerability as revealed by low adverse effects and moderate efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% in reducing VKC symptoms in a broader age group (18-70 years) of both genders.

Comparison of preservative-free ketotifen fumarate and preserved olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops in the treatment of moderate to severe seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: To compare preservative-free ketotifen 0.025% ophthalmic solution to olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution in with the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) in clinical practice. METHODS: This was a comparative, randomised, investigator-masked, pilot clinical study in adult patients with documented history of SAC and presenting with moderate to severe itching and conjunctival hyperemia. Eligible patients initiated either ketotifen or olopatadine treatment at a dose of one drop twice daily for 28days. The resolution of ocular signs and symptoms was assessed on day 7 and day 28. Itching was also assessed within 15minutes following the first instillation (day 0). Conjunctival impression cytology was performed at each visit to assess the evolution of ICAM-1 expression (day 0, 7 and 28). RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were randomised (ketotifen: 38 patients; olopatadine: 37 patients). At day 28, the composite score for primary criteria (itching, tearing, and conjunctival hyperemia) improved from 6.8±1.2 to 0.9±1.0 in the Ketotifen group, without statistically significant difference between treatment groups (P=0.67). There was no relevant difference between treatment groups in other efficacy parameters, except a trend for a more rapid resolution of conjunctival hyperemia in the Ketotifen group. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a trend for a better tolerability reported by patients on ketotifen compared to those on olopatadine at day 7 (P=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid and comparable improvement in SAC was achieved after 28days of treatment with both preservative-free ketotifen and preserved olopatadine ophthalmic solutions, with a slightly better ocular tolerance with unpreserved ketotifen 0.025% eye drops.

Effect of intranasal fluticasone furoate and intraocular olopatadine on nasal and ocular allergen-induced symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) leads to a nasal ocular reflex, which is augmented by allergic inflammation. This study was designed to confirm our previous observation that an intranasal steroid inhibits the nasal ocular reflex and to show that histamine does not play an important role in the genesis of this reflex. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo (PL)-controlled, four-way crossover trial in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis out of season. Subjects were randomized to receive 1 week pretreatment with intranasal PL and intraocular (PL/PL), intranasal PL and intraocular olopatadine (PL/OLO), intranasal fluticasone furoate (FF) and intraocular PL (FF/PL), and the combination (FF/OLO). Subjects then underwent NAC on 2 consecutive days. The number of sneezes and nasal and ocular symptoms were recorded, and levels of tryptase and histamine were measured in nasal lavages. RESULTS: NAC after PL/PL resulted in increase in symptoms, histamine, and tryptase after the challenge on the 2nd day. There was a reduction in eye symptoms on the 2nd day of challenge from 6.0 after PL/PL to 0 after FF/PL (p = 0.001), 2.5 after PL/OLO (p = 0.3), and 1.5 after FF/OLO (p = 0.003). Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the response after FF/PL versus FF/OLO and a significant difference between FF/PL and PL/OLO (p = 0.02). Levels of tryptase followed a similar trend. The number of eosinophils in nasal lavages on the 2nd day of challenge were also reduced by the treatment arms containing FF compared with PL. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm the existence of a nasal ocular reflex after NAC. OLO alone or the addition of OLO to FF does not impact ocular symptoms caused by the naso-ocular reflex, suggesting that mast cells are not activated to release histamine in the conjunctiva during this process.

Olopatadine versus levocetirizine in chronic urticaria: an observer-blind, randomized, controlled trial of effectiveness and safety.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterized by frequent appearance of wheals for ≥ 6 weeks. This study was undertaken to compare effectiveness and safety of olopatadine, a newer antihistamine with additional anti-inflammatory properties, in treating CU in comparison to the established second-generation antihistamine levocetirizine. METHODS: A single center, assessor-blind, randomized (1:1), active-controlled, parallel group, Phase IV trial (CTRI/2011/08/001965) was conducted with 120 adult CU patients of either sex. Subjects received either olopatadine (5 mg b.i.d.) or levocetirizine (5 mg/day) for 9 weeks, continuously for first 4 weeks and then on demand basis for last 5 weeks. Primary outcome measures were urticaria activity score (UAS) and urticaria total severity score (TSS). Routine hematological and biochemical tests and treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored for safety. RESULTS: Data from 54 subjects on olopatadine and 51 on levocetirizine were analyzed for effectiveness. UAS and TSS values declined significantly with both drugs over the treatment period but the reduction was greater with olopatadine. Adverse event profiles were comparable with sedation being the commonest complaint. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine is a safe and more effective alternative to levocetirizine in the treatment of CU.

Double dose of cetirizine hydrochloride is effective for patients with urticaria resistant: a prospective, randomized, non-blinded, comparative clinical study and assessment of quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: An increased dose of the prescribed drug or a change of the drug is recommended in the treatment for the patients with urticaria refractory to the standard dose of antihistamines. Efficacy and safety of doubling the dose of cetirizine were compared with olopatadine in the patients with symptoms like wheal or itching, despite the treatment with the standard dose of cetirizine. METHODS: Cetirizine was administered at 10 mg once daily to 51 patients with urticaria for a mean of 10.1 ± 7.3 days (period A). Patients with inadequate responses were randomized to either cetirizine 20 mg once daily (dose-increase group) or olopatadine 5 mg twice daily (drug-change group) for a mean of 13.3 ± 8.3 days (Period B). The severity of wheal and itching, and the quality of life (QOL) measured by Skindex-16 were evaluated. RESULTS: In period A, an adequate response was obtained in 64.7% (33/51). Nine patients each with inadequate response were randomized to either the drug-change or dose-increase groups. A significant improvement was observed in the severity of wheal and itching in the dose-increase group in period B. The QOL was significantly improved in all sub-scales of Skindex-16. CONCLUSION: Doubling the dose of cetirizine may be efficacious to the patients with urticaria refractory to the regular dose of cetirizine.

[A 10-week safety and efficacy evaluation of olopatadine, 0.2% instilled twice-daily in patients with allergic conjunctivitis in Japan].

PURPOSE: Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, 0.2% (olopatadine 0.2%) is a multi-action agent approved in Japan for allergic conjunctivitis when used as a dose of 1 to 2 drops twice-daily. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term (10 weeks) safety and efficacy of olopatadine 0.2% in Japanese patients with allergic conjunctivitis when used as a dose of 2 drops twice-daily. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a single-insititution, open-label, single-group study of symptomatic patients > or = 12 years of age with allergic conjunctivitis. RESULTS: A total of 110 Japanese patients were enrolled. From baseline to week 10, the mean (95% confidence interval) absolute changes were -2.4 (-2.7, -2.2) in ocular itching and the total hyperemia scores were -3.2 (-3.4, -2.9). Mean scores for all other efficacy variables were low at baseline (< or = 2.4) and decreased to < or = 0.6 by week 10. There were no serious adverse events. Mild eye irritation (1 patient) was the only treatment-related event. No safety concerns were identified in a review of the safety results. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, olopatadine 0.2% is generally safe, well tolerated and effective when instilled as 2 drops in both eyes twice-daily in Japanese patients with allergic conjunctivitis and is a useful new option for ocular allergy management.

Loteprednol etabonate suspension 0.2% administered QID compared with olopatadine solution 0.1% administered BID in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel group study in Chinese patients.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is caused by seasonal allergens and usually manifests as ocular itching and bulbar conjunctival injection (redness). Treatment options for SAC include corticosteroids and dual-acting antihistamine and mast-cell stabilizers. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of loteprednol etabonate (LE), a C-20 ester-based corticosteroid, with those of olopatadine, a dual-acting antihistamine mast-cell stabilizer, in Chinese patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel group study. Patients with acute SAC experiencing grade 4 ocular itching and grade 2 or higher bulbar conjunctival injection received either LE suspension 0.2% QID at 4-hour intervals or olopatadine solution 0.1% BID at 6- to 8-hour intervals bilaterally for 15 days. Primary efficacy end points included the change from baseline (CFB) in ocular itching and bulbar conjunctival injection at day 15. The primary analysis tested the noninferiority of LE suspension 0.2% to olopatadine solution 0.1%. Tolerability outcomes included the incidence of adverse events (AEs), biomicroscopy findings, visual acuity, and intraocular pressure. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were randomly assigned, and 293 were included in the per-protocol population (LE, n = 147; olopatadine, n = 146). Mean (SD) CFB at day 15 in the LE and olopatadine treatment groups, respectively, was -3.74 (0.47) and -3.28 (0.91) for ocular itching and -1.91 (0.52) and -1.71 (0.59) for bulbar conjunctival injection. The 95% CI for the differences in CFB in ocular itching (-0.59 to -0.27) and bulbar conjunctival injection (-0.27 to -0.08) was less than the prespecified noninferiority limit of 0.3. Treatment differences in CFB were significantly better with LE compared with olopatadine for both end points (P ≤ 0.0006). Ocular AEs were few and similar between treatment groups. There were no clinically significant biomicroscopy or visual acuity findings, and no patient experienced a clinically significant increase in intraocular pressure (≥10 mm Hg). CONCLUSION: Results of this investigator-masked study with Chinese patients suggest LE suspension 0.2% was noninferior to olopatadine solution 0.1% for the treatment of SAC. Both LE suspension 0.2% and olopatadine solution 0.1% were well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01435460.

Fixed drug eruption induced by topical olopatadine ophthalmic solution.

Fixed drug eruption (FDE) usually develops after oral administration and is described as a cutaneous reaction recurring at the same location each time the drug is taken. Olopatadine is both a H1 histamine receptor antagonist and a mast cell stabilizer, indicated for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Here, we report a 14-year-old male patient who developed FDE localised on the lateral side of periorbital rim bilaterally, whilst applying olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. As far as we know, FDE due to olopatadine has not been previously reported in the literature. We deem it appropriate to report this case because FDE that results from the application of topical drugs is a rare event in the literature.

[A multicenter, double-masked, randomized evaluation of olopatadine 0.2% using the conjunctival allergen challenge model in Japanese patients with allergic conjunctivitis].

PURPOSE: Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, 0.2% (olopatadine 0.2%) is approved for allergic conjunctivitis when instilled twice-daily. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olopatadine 0.2% (instilled twice-daily) versus vehicle and olopatadine 0.1% (instilled 4-times daily) in Japanese patients with allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: A multicenter, parallel-group, double-masked, randomized, conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) study. Patients > or = 18 years of age with histories of allergic conjunctivitis were treated with either olopatadine 0.2% or olopatadine 0.1% in a single eye and the vehicle in the contralateral eye at 1 visit. RESULTS: Overall, 267 patients were enrolled. Olopatadine 0.2% was superior to its vehicle for ocular itching (p < 0.0001 at the time of observation) and marginally superior for total redness (p = 0.0543 at the time of observation). Olopatadine 0.2% was similar to olopatadine 0.1% for ocular itching at the time of observation. No trends were identified through a review of safety parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine 0.2% (instilled twice-daily) is safe, well tolerated, superior to the vehicle, and similar to olopatadine 0.1% in preventing ocular itching. Olopatadine 0.2%, which can be instilled less often than olopatadine 0.1%, is a useful new option for allergic conjunctivitis in Japanese patients that could potentially result in better treatment compliance.

Effects of single therapeutic doses of promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine on psychomotor function and histamine-induced wheal- and flare-responses: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers.

Since most first-generation antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous systems (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to improve patients' quality of life. However, there are few reports that directly compare the antihistaminic efficacy and impairment of psychomotor functions. We designed a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study to concurrently compare the clinical effectiveness of promethazine, a first-generation antihistamine, and fexofenadine and olopatadine, second-generation antihistamines, by measuring their potency as peripheral inhibitors of histamine-induced wheal and flare. Further, we investigated their sedative effects on the CNS using a battery of psychomotor tests. When single therapeutic doses of fexofenadine (60 mg), olopatadine (5 mg) and promethazine (25 mg) were given in a double-blind manner to 24 healthy volunteers, all antihistamines produced a significant reduction in the wheal and flare responses induced by histamine. In the comparison among antihistamines, olopatadine showed a rapid inhibitory effect compared with fexofenadine and promethazine, and had a potent effect compared with promethazine. In a battery of psychomotor assessments using critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, compensatory tracking, rapid visual information processing and a line analogue rating scale as a subjective assessment of sedation, promethazine significantly impaired psychomotor function. Fexofenadine and olopatadine had no significant effect in any of the psychomotor tests. Promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine did not affect behavioral activity, as measured by wrist actigraphy. These results suggest that olopatadine at a therapeutic dose has greater antihistaminergic activity than promethazine, and olopatadine and fexofenadine did not cause cognitive or psychomotor impairment.

Olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray protects from vasomotor challenge in patients with severe vasomotor rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is a hypersensitivity syndrome with heightened reactivity to environmental triggers. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with severe VMR were treated nasally with either normal saline or 0.6% olopatadine and challenged nasally with a hyperosmolar mannitol solution. RESULTS: Treatment with 0.6% olopatadine resulted in an improvement in instantaneous nasal symptom scores at 5 and 30 minutes (p < 0.01) compared with baseline and at 30 minutes after hyperosmolar challenge compared with saline-pretreated individuals (p < 0.01). There was also an improvement in nasal peak inspiratory flow rate at 30 minutes after hyperosmolar challenge compared with saline-pretreated individuals (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this patient population 0.6% olopatadine appears to be efficacious in symptom reduction in VMR and protects from hyperosmolar challenge.

Comprehensive report of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray as treatment for children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is highly prevalent in children. Olopatadine, 0.6% nasal spray (olopatadine) is approved for the relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms in children 6 years of age and older. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive report of all clinical studies conducted with olopatadine in children with SAR. A pooled analysis was conducted of 2 randomized, double-blind, 2-week, IRB-approved studies that compared olopatadine with placebo (1 spray/nostril twice-daily) in patients 6-11 years of age with SAR. Assessments included the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) and total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ), and the Caregiver Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Allergic Rhinitis (CGTSQ-AR). Safety results were reported for these studies in combination with a pediatric pharmacokinetic study. Olopatadine was superior to placebo for mean decrease in rTNSS (p = 0.0012) and rTOSS (p = 0.0094), mean decrease in overall PRQLQ score (p = 0.0003), and mean summary CGTSQ AR score (p = 0.0013); (n = 944). The most frequently reported treatment-related events in the olopatadine group were epistaxis and dysgeusia (bad taste) (n = 1,046). For SAR treatment in patients 6-11 years of age, olopatadine was superior to placebo in reducing the symptoms of SAR, improving quality of life, and satisfying caregivers. Olopatadine is a safe and effective treatment for SAR patients as young as 6 years of age and it has been demonstrated to reduce disease impact on the lives of these children and their families.

Efficacy of oral olopatadine hydrochloride for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Adequate treatment is critical for maintaining a good level of quality of life (QOL) during the pollen season in patients suffering from seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Olopatadine, a histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist, has been approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of AR and allergic conjunctivitis as a nasal spray and an ophthalmic solution, respectively. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether orally administered olopatadine for prophylactic purposes might also be effective for the control of nasal allergy symptoms, especially nasal congestion, in patients with SAR due to Japanese cedar pollen (SAR-JP). A total of 110 patients with SAR caused by JP were randomized to the treatment. The subjects recorded their nasal and ocular allergic symptom scores in a diary, and their QOL was assessed by the Japanese version of the Rhinoconjunctivity Quality of Life Questionnaire. Treatment with oral olopatadine significantly suppressed sneezing (p < 0.001), rhinorrhea (p < 0.001), and nasal congestion (p < 0.05). The total QOL score during the peak JP season was superior in the olopatadine group than in the placebo group (p < 0.05). However, orally administered olopatadine did not exert any significant effect against eye itching and watering of the eyes, unlike olopatadine nasal spray. Treatment with olopatadine tablets yielded superior QOL scores in the domains of usual daily activities and outdoor activities when compared with placebo. No serious adverse effects of the treatment were reported during the study period. These results suggest that oral olopatadine treatment may be a useful alternative treatment strategy for AR.

Olopatadine hydrochloride in children: efficacy and safety for perennial allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of antihistamines in perennial allergic rhinitis in children has been evaluated in studies using active comparators, whereas placebo-controlled studies are very few. A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical study was carried out to evaluate the dose-response relationship and superiority of olopatadine hydrochloride over placebo in children aged 7 to 16 years with perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Subjects received twice daily treatment for two weeks with either olopatadine 2.5 mg, 5 mg or placebo after a one-week observation period. Efficacy was assessed based on the diary card score the subject (or guardian) recorded. RESULTS: Of the 302 subjects randomized, two were excluded from analysis: one did not receive treatment; the other was not monitored for efficacy parameters. The remaining 300 subjects (97 in the placebo group, 103 in the olopatadine 2.5-mg group and 100 in the olopatadine 5-mg group) constituted the full analysis set (FAS) for the efficacy analysis. As a primary endpoint, the total three nasal symptom score (for sneezing, rhinorrhea and nasal congestion) at final assessment was compared with baseline or the score obtained in the observation period. The change from baseline was then tested using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline score as covariate. Williams' test was applied to the least squares means estimated from this ANCOVA model for each treatment group, resulting in showing the monotonicity Williams' test assumed. The total three nasal symptom score significantly improved in the 5-mg group compared with the placebo group (p = 0.019). In contrast, the 2.5-mg group did not differ statistically from the placebo group. Adverse events occurred in 33.7% (33/98 subjects) in the placebo group, 35.9% (37/103 subjects) in the 2.5-mg group and 35.0% (35/100 subjects) in the 5-mg group. There were no serious or severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg twice daily is an effective and safe treatment for perennial allergic rhinitis in children.

Evaluation of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray, 0.6%, used in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The combination of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids results in superior relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms compared with monotherapy. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray, 0.6% (OLO), administered in combination with fluticasone nasal spray, 50 micrograms (FNS), relative to azelastine nasal spray, 0.1% (AZE), administered in combination with FNS in the treatment of SAR. This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group comparison of OLO + FNS versus AZE + FNS administered for 14 days to patients > or =12 years of age with histories of SAR. Efficacy assessments recorded by patients in a daily diary included nasal symptom scores. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs). Pretreatment values for reflective total nasal symptoms scores (rTNSS) were similar for both treatment groups. The mean (SD) 2-week average rTNSS was 4.28 (2.63) for OLO + FNS and 4.15 (2.63) for AZE + FNS; these scores were not statistically different between treatment groups. No significant differences (p > 0.05) between OLO + FNS and AZE + FNS were observed for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline in rTNSS or in the individual nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, itchy nose, and sneezing). Compared with baseline, both groups had statistically significant improvement in rTNSS (p < 0.05). No serious AEs were reported in either group during the study period. Overall, 19 AEs were reported in the OLO + FNS group and 29 AEs were reported in the AZE + FNS group. OLO, when administered adjunctively with FNS, is effective, safe, and well-tolerated in patients with SAR.

Safety and efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in pediatric subjects with allergic rhinitis.

Olopatadine (OLO) nasal spray 0.6% is indicated for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in subjects > or = 12 years of age. This study was designed to present the results of two studies that evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of OLO in children with allergic rhinitis (AR). These were multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group studies in subjects 6 to <12 years of age (study 1) and 2 to <6 years of age (study 2) with SAR (study 1) or AR (study 2). In study 1, nasal and ocular symptoms were scored for efficacy, and study 2 included PK analyses. In both studies, subjects were evaluated based on physical/nasal examinations and adverse events (AEs). Overall, 1188 subjects (study 1) and 132 subjects (study 2) were randomized, respectively. OLO (1 or 2 sprays/nostril, b.i.d.) was superior to vehicle in the percent decrease in reflective total nasal symptom scores (p < or = 0.0120). OLO 1 spray/nostril b.i.d. was also superior to vehicle in the percent decreases in reflective total ocular symptom scores (p < or = 0.0084), change from baseline in Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire scores (p < or = 0.0377), Caregiver Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores (p < or = 0.0450), and proportions of subjects reporting improvements in Subject Global Assessments (p = 0.0035). The most frequently reported treatment-related events in the OLO group were bad/bitter taste and epistaxis. In subjects 6 to <12 years of age, OLO was superior to vehicle in the treatment of SAR. In subjects 2 to <12 years of age, OLO had an overall low rate of AEs and low systemic exposure.

Evaluation of the cytotoxic effects of ophthalmic solutions containing benzalkonium chloride on corneal epithelium using an organotypic 3-D model.

BACKGROUND: Benzalkonium chloride (BAC) is a common preservative used in ophthalmic solutions. The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic effects of BAC-containing ophthalmic solutions with a BAC-free ophthalmic solution using an organotypic 3-dimensional (3-D) corneal epithelial model and to determine the effects of latanoprost ophthalmic solution and its BAC-containing vehicle on corneal thickness in a monkey model. METHODS: The cytotoxicity of commercially available BAC-containing ophthalmic formulations of latanoprost (0.02% BAC) and olopatadine (0.01% BAC) was compared to that of BAC-free travoprost and saline in a corneal organotypic 3-D model using incubation times of 10 and 25 minutes. To compare the extent of differentiation of 3-D corneal cultures to monolayer transformed human corneal epithelial (HCE-T) cell cultures, expression levels (mRNA and protein) of the corneal markers epidermal growth factor receptor, transglutaminase 1 and involucrin were quantified. Finally, latanoprost ophthalmic solution or its vehicle was administered at suprapharmacologic doses (two 30 microL drops twice daily in 1 eye for 1 year) in monkey eyes, and corneal pachymetry was performed at baseline and at weeks 4, 13, 26 and 52. RESULTS: In the 3-D corneal epithelial culture assays, there were no significant differences in cytotoxicity between the BAC-containing latanoprost and olopatadine ophthalmic solutions and BAC-free travoprost ophthalmic solution at either the 10- or 25-minute time points. The 3-D cultures expressed higher levels of corneal epithelial markers than the HCE-T monolayers, indicating a greater degree of differentiation. There were no significant differences between the corneal thickness of monkey eyes treated with latanoprost ophthalmic solution or its vehicle (both containing 0.02% BAC) and untreated eyes. CONCLUSION: The lack of cytotoxicity demonstrated in 3-D corneal cultures and in monkey studies suggests that the levels of BAC contained in ophthalmic solutions are not likely to cause significant direct toxicity to epithelium of otherwise normal corneas.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of olopatadine and fexofenadine compared with placebo in Japanese cedar pollinosis using an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation oral H1-antihistamines have become a mainstay of treatment for the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis; however, the effect of olopatadine has not been widely reported to date. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of 2 oral H1-antihistamines, olopatadine and fexofenadine, in the treatment of the nasal symptoms of Japanese cedar pollinosis and their possible side effects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study conducted in an environmental exposure unit (EEU). Twenty volunteers suffering from Japanese cedar pollinosis were randomly divided into 3 groups and exposed to cedar pollen in the EEU with oral administration of olopatadine hydrochloride (5 mg), fexofenadine hydrochloride (60 mg), or placebo 1 hour prior to pollen exposure. Nasal symptoms, activity impairment, and subjective sleepiness were self-assessed during the study period. Attention was measured using the digit cancellation test. The trial was repeated after 4 and 7 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, olopatadine significantly improved nasal symptoms and activity impairment during pollen exposure (P < .05). There was no significant relief of nasal discharge or nasal congestion with fexofenadine throughout the 5-hour exposure to cedar pollen. Furthermore, olopatadine significantly reduced nasal congestion during the first 2 hours, as well as sneezing and nasal discharge 4 hours after admission to the EEU compared with fexofenadine (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the effect on subjective sleepiness among the 3 groups, and all 3 agents had little effect on attention. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that olopatadine is more effective than placebo and fexofenadine in improving nasal symptoms of Japanese cedar pollinosis.

Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The efficacy of nasal antihistamines (NAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is comparable with or better than second-generation oral antihistamines, with faster onset of action and greater effect on congestion. Limited data suggest that NAHs may be equivalent to intranasal corticosteroids at reducing the full range of nasal seasonal AR (SAR) symptoms, including congestion. The efficacy of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.) for symptoms of SAR was compared with fluticasone 50 microg nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril q.d.) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 2-week noninferiority trial. A total of 130 symptomatic patients were randomized to treatment and they recorded nasal and ocular allergy symptom scores b.i.d. (morning and evening) in a diary. Both treatments reduced reflective and instantaneous assessments of nasal and ocular symptoms from baseline throughout the 2-week study period (p < 0.05). The reflective total nasal symptom score (the primary efficacy variable) decreased by an average of -45.4% for patients treated with olopatadine 0.6% and by -47.4% for those treated with fluticasone; statistical significance favoring olopatadine was demonstrated at day 1. No significant between-treatment differences were determined for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline for congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and ocular symptoms, although olopatadine had a faster onset of action for reducing all symptoms. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Olopatadine and fluticasone nasal sprays both reduced nasal and ocular SAR symptoms with no significant between-treatment differences except for a faster and greater onset of action with olopatadine.

Effects of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study in adolescents and adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an allergen-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs during periods of high pollen count. Current treatments for SAR include allergen avoidance, systemic antihistamines, and steroidal and nonsteroidal intranasal sprays. Olopatadine is a selective antihistamine and an inhibitor of proinflammatory mediators from human mast cells. An intranasal formulation of olopatadine has been developed for the treatment of SAR. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% (AZE) and an inactive vehicle in the treatment of SAR. METHODS: This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were aged > or =12 years and had a history of SAR and verified allergy to a prevalent local allergen. After a run-in period during which inactive vehicle was administered, patients were randomly assigned to OLO, AZE (active control), or inactive vehicle (identical to OLO; placebo control), 2 sprays in each nostril BID for 16 days. The timing of enrollment was correlated with the start of the allergy season at each site. Symptoms were recorded twice daily in an electronic diary. Efficacy assessments included changes in mean daily reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSS). Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs) and nasal, physical, and cardiovascular parameters. RESULTS: A total of 544 patients were randomized. The mean age was 36 years (range, 12-77 years); men and boys represented 32.2% of the population; and the patients were predominantly white (75.4%). The mean reductions from baseline in reflective TNSS were 26.8%, 29.9%, and 18.4% with OLO, AZE, and inactive vehicle, respectively (P = 0.003 OLO vs inactive vehicle; 95% CI, -2.5% to 8.7% OLO vs AZE [non-inferiority]). The most commonly reported treatment-related AE in the OLO and AZE groups was bitter taste (12.2% [22/180] and 19.7% [37/188], respectively). The prevalence and intensity of bitter taste were significantly lower with OLO than with AZE (P = 0.05 and P = 0.005, respectively). In the group that received inactive vehicle, the prevalence of bitter taste was 1.7% (3/176). The prevalences of other treatment-related AEs, including epistaxis and nasal discomfort, were < or =3.7% in each group and did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in patients aged > or =12 years with SAR, the percentage reduction from baseline in TNSS was significantly greater with OLO (2 sprays in each nostril BID) compared with vehicle and not significantly different from that with AZE. OLO and AZE were similarly well tolerated, with the exception of prevalence and intensity of bitter taste, which were significantly lower with OLO.