Allergic Rhinitis: A Review.

Importance: Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches. Observations: Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid. Conclusions and Relevance: Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

Intranasal corticosteroid and antihistamine combinations in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: the role of the novel formulation olopatadine/mometasone furoate.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common disease with an important impact on the quality of life and very high management costs. In many patients, the poor control of rhinitis symptoms often requires the use of different drugs, and polytherapy tends to reduce therapeutic adherence. According to the latest version of ARIA guidelines, the currently recommended drugs for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AR are second-generation antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and their combination, even in a single nasal spray device. A single medication with a rapid onset of action, acting on breakthrough symptoms too, would be advantageous, also in terms of patient compliance. AREAS COVERED: GSP301 (olopatadine 600 µg - mometasone furoate 25 µg) is a novel intranasal formulation, combining the second-generation antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride with mometasone furoate. Here, we review the evidence for GSP301, especially concerning the efficacy and safety profile of this intranasal combination in the treatment of AR. EXPERT OPINION: The evidence provided in the current review clearly supports the use of GSP301 as a novel intranasal corticosteroid/antihistamine combination with a well-documented efficacy and safety profile in terms of rapid symptom relief and good tolerability.

Understanding ocular comfort differences between 0.7% olopatadine and 0.3% pheniramine maleate/0.025% naphazoline hydrochloride eye drops.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study found 0.7% olopatadine (Pataday Once Daily Relief Extra Strength) eye drops to provide better initial comfort than 0.3% pheniramine maleate/0.025% naphazoline hydrochloride (VISINE® Allergy Eye Relief Multi-Action Antihistamine and Redness Reliever) eye drops suggesting that patients may comply better with the Pataday than VISINE. BACKGROUND: To compare the ocular comfort at instillation of Pataday and VISINE allergy eye drops. METHODS: Minimally symptomatic participants were recruited based upon Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire scores (≤3 units); they also had minimal between-eye inter-ocular comfort differences as judged by visual analogue scale scores (VAS; ≤7 units). Baseline comfort was evaluated by eye with a VAS. One drop of Pataday or VISINE was then applied to the right eye with the alternative drop being applied to the left eye. The same VAS evaluated comfort by eye at drop instillation, and then at 30 seconds, 1 minute, and 2 minutes post-instillation. Drop experience was also evaluated with Likert questions. LogMAR visual acuities and bulbar conjunctival redness were evaluated pre- and post-drop instillation. RESULTS: A total of 159 participants were recruited (mean ± SD age = 26.2 ± 7.5). The VAS found that eyes treated with Pataday were significantly more comfortable at instillation than eyes treated with VISINE. Likert questions indicated that participants significantly preferred Pataday drops compared to the VISINE drops at instillation with regards to overall eye comfort, eye stinging, eye burning, and foreign body sensation. There were no between drop differences in visual acuity, though eyes treated with VISINE were less red than eyes treated with Pataday. CONCLUSIONS: Topically applied Pataday drops were more comfortable than VISINE drops.

Efficacy and safety of GSP301 nasal spray in children aged 6 to 11 years with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of GSP301 in pediatric patients (aged ≥6 to <12 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study randomized 446 eligible patients 1:1 (GSP301 [olopatadine hydrochloride 665 µg and mometasone furoate 25 µg] or placebo) as 1 spray/each nostril twice daily for 14 days. The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning and evening subject-reported 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) over a 14-day treatment period analyzed using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Additional assessments included instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, reflective Total Ocular Symptoms Score, instantaneous Total Ocular Symptoms Score, individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score, and adverse events. RESULTS: GSP301 showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rTNSS vs placebo (-0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to -0.2; P = .001). Statistically significant improvements favoring GSP301 were shown for all individual rTNSS symptoms, instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, and most of its individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (P = .01), and Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P < .001). For ocular symptoms, numerical improvements favoring GSP301 were observed, with statistical significance achieved only for reflective "tearing/watering eyes" (P = .04). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12.0% and 10.4% of patients in the GSP301 and placebo groups, respectively. One subject (0.5%) (placebo group) experienced a serious adverse event (suspected viral meningitis) that was not related to the study treatment and was resolved. CONCLUSION: GSP301 was well tolerated and efficacious for treating SAR symptoms in pediatric patients and showed a favorable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03463031.

Environmental exposure unit simulates natural seasonal birch pollen exposures while maximizing change in allergic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Birch pollen is a prevalent aeroallergen during the springtime allergy season. In field studies, variable allergen exposure and environmental factors can affect data quality while environmental exposure units (EEUs) deliver controlled, standardized, and reproducible allergen exposures. OBJECTIVE: To inform study design for EEU trials evaluating antiallergic therapies. METHODS: In this prospective study, 76 participants with birch allergy experienced 3 exposures to birch pollen: (1) an out-of-season EEU challenge (two 3-hour sessions on consecutive days); (2) a natural seasonal exposure; and (3) an in-season EEU challenge (3-hour exposure for 2 weeks after birch pollen season initiation). RESULTS: The total nasal symptom score, total ocular symptom score, and total symptom score (TSS = total nasal symptom score plus total ocular symptom score) were assessed every 30 minutes and daily during EEU and natural exposures. A high association between TSSs and day 2 of the out-of-season and in-season EEU challenges was noted, with a good association between the maximum TSS during the natural and in-season EEU challenges, and natural season and day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (P < .001 for all). Participants had higher maximum change from the baseline TSS during day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (12.4) vs the following: (1) first day (9.8); (2) in-season EEU challenge (8.4); and (3) natural seasonal exposure (7.6) (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSION: A strong association was seen between the presence of allergy symptoms and exposure to birch pollen in the EEU (maximum change in symptom scores during day 2) and in the field. A hybrid trial design may be useful to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of novel antiallergic therapies requiring fewer participants and shorter timelines and expediting treatment availability.

The effectiveness of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for allergic conjunctivitis: Protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a multifactorial and common type of ocular surface disease that affects many people. The quality of life for AC patients can be significantly decreased caused by symptoms of ocular itching, swelling, redness, and tearing. Topical antihistaminics, mast cell stabilizers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids have been widely used to treat AC. Many clinical trials have indicated that olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops can provide quick relief of symptoms and signs. The purpose of this review is to evaluate systematically the effectiveness of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for treating AC. METHODS: A systematic review of all of the randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for AC will be conducted. We will search PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), EMBASE (OVID), the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and CBM, from the database inception date to October 31, 2019. There are no language or publication status restrictions. Registers of clinical trials, potential gray literature, reference lists of studies, and conference abstracts will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently read the articles, extract the data information, and assess the quality of the studies. Data will be synthesized by a heterogeneity test. The primary outcomes include the main symptom and sign scores before and after treatment, the eye redness index, the presence of eosinophils in the conjunctival scraping. Quality of life, the total treatment efficacy, and safety will be evaluated as the secondary outcomes. RevMan V.5.3 software will be used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The study will provide an objective and normative systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for the treatment of AC. CONCLUSION: Our review will provide useful information to judge whether olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops is an effective intervention for patients with AC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: It is not necessary to obtain ethical approval as participants are not involved patients. The protocol and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The systematic review will also be disseminated electronically and in print to help guide health care practice and policy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019132232.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution and bepotastine 1.5% ophthalmic solution in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis in a tertiary care hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Vernal conjunctivitis comprises 0.5% of allergic eye diseases. The study is intended to collate the effectiveness of drugs by observing the reduction in signs and symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic drops with bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic drops in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, comparative study conducted in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Telangana. The study included 50 patients diagnosed with VKC, of which Group A and Group B were given olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic drops and bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic drops, respectively, twice a day for 8 weeks. The reduction in signs and symptoms in both groups was compared. The observations and results were tabulated accordingly, and data were analyzed using the SPSS. The unpaired t-test is used as the test of significance in between two groups. P value is statistically significant when it is less than 0.05. RESULTS: Overall, 50 cases were included in the study, 72% of total patients were in the age group of 5-10 years, and 28% were in the age group of 11-15 years. There were 39 males and 11 females. After 8 weeks of follow-up, the mean reduction in the scoring of symptoms and signs provided better and quicker relief of watering, ocular discomfort, and conjunctival hyperemia with bepotastine 1.5% eye drops. Olopatadine 0.1% eye drops provided faster improvement in papillary hypertrophy. Both drugs were equally effective in reducing itching. Laboratory findings of absolute eosinophil count had no statistical significance in between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, based on the evaluation of therapeutic performance, bepotastine eye drops proved quicker relief of symptoms and signs compared to olopatadine eye drops but was not statistically significant which would prove beneficial for the patients.

Long-term safety and efficacy of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Background: Safety and efficacy of GSP301 nasal spray, an investigational fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate, was established in three large, 2-week seasonal allergic rhinitis studies. Objective: To evaluate long-term (52 weeks) safety and efficacy of GSP301 in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 601 patients (ages ≥ 12 years) with PAR were randomized 4:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg [pH 3.7]) or two GSP301 vehicle formulations (placebo pH 3.7 or 7.0). Safety (primary end point) was monitored through adverse events (AE), laboratory assessments, vital signs, and physical examinations at weeks 30 and 52. The change from baseline in the average A.M. reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) and instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score (iTNSS), Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Scores (PNSS), and quality of life were assessed for GSP301 versus placebo pH 3.7 (p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant). Results: At week 52, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAE) occurred in 51.7, 41.4, and 53.5% of patients in the GSP301, placebo pH 3.7 and placebo 7.0 groups, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences were observed in TEAE incidences or other safety assessments across treatments. At weeks 6 and 30, GSP301 provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in average rTNSS and iTNSS versus placebo pH 3.7 (p < 0.01, all comparisons). Similarly, at week 52, GSP301 provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (least-squares mean difference -0.91 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -1.35 to -0.47]; p < 0.001), and iTNSS (least-squares mean difference -0.75 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.33]; p < 0.001) versus placebo pH 3.7, with significant improvements in each individual symptom (p < 0.05, all comparisons). PNSS and quality of life were significantly improved versus placebo pH 3.7 at weeks 6 and 30 (p < 0.05, all comparisons), but these greater improvements did not reach statistical significance at week 52 (PNSS, p = 0.552; quality of life, p = 0.790). Conclusion: Twice-daily GSP301 was well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PAR nasal symptoms versus placebo over 52 weeks and demonstrated a favorable safety profile and efficacy.Clinical trial NCT02709538, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray: Evaluation of efficacy and safety in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Background: GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray that contains the antihistamine, olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl), and the corticosteroid, mometasone furoate. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to intranasal GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg), olopatadine HCl (665 µg), mometasone furoate (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days of twice-daily treatment. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the average A.M. and P.M. 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) analyzed by using mixed-effect model repeated measures (p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance). Additional assessments included instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), individual nasal symptoms, reflective Total Ocular Symptom Score (rTOSS) and instantaneous Total Ocular Symptom Score (iTOSS), onset of action, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (PNSS), quality of life, and adverse events (AE). Results: A total of 1180 patients were randomized. Over 14 days of treatment, GSP301 significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. rTNSS versus placebo (least squares mean difference -0.98 [95% confidence interval, -1.38 to -0.57]; p < 0.001) and versus olopatadine (p = 0.003), and approached statistical significance versus mometasone (p = 0.059). GSP301 also significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. iTNSS versus placebo and both monotherapies (p < 0.05, all). Further, GSP301 significantly improved individual nasal symptoms, overall ocular symptoms (rTOSS and iTOSS), and overall quality of life versus placebo (p < 0.01, all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent time points assessed. Results for the PNSS also were significant for GSP301 versus placebo (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients with treatment-emergent AEs treated with GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo were 12.9, 12.5, 7.1, and 9.4%, respectively. Conclusion: GSP301 was efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of SAR symptoms compared with placebo, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in patients ≥12 years of age.Clinical trial NCT02631551, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 µg of olopatadine and 25 µg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 µg), mometasone (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.

Topical antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, and dual-action agents in ocular allergy: current trends.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To address the current trends of therapeutic mechanisms for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis (AC), based on topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilizers (MCS). RECENT FINDINGS: The antihistamine drug alcaftadine has H4 receptor inverse agonism, anti-inflammatory and MCS activities. The antihistamines levocabastine and azelastine are more effective than placebo in treatment of AC symptoms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The topical dual-action antihistamines/MCS olopatadine, azelastine, ketotifen, and epinastine are commonly used in Europe and in the United States for mild subtypes of AC. For the main symptoms of AC, ocular itch and conjunctival hyperemia, epinastine 0.05% was superior to placebo, but equal or more effective than olopatadine 0.1%, while the later was more effective than ketotifen. High concentration olopatadine 0.77% had longer duration of action, better efficacy on ocular itch, and a similar safety profile to low-concentration olopatadine 0.2%. The new formulas of topical dual-action agents present longer duration of action, leading to a decreased frequency of use. SUMMARY: The topical dual-action agents are the most effective agents treating signs and symptoms of mild forms of AC. There is superiority to the high-concentration olopatadine drug over other agents on ocular itch, with prolonged effect when used once-daily.

Identification of potential anti-hepatitis C virus agents targeting non structural protein 5B using computational techniques.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 5B (NS5B) is an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that plays a key role in HCV replication, and, hence, NS5B is an attractive target for hepatitis C drug discovery. Hepatitis C is a chronic liver disease affecting the global population significantly. Many NS5B inhibitors targeting active site were launched in recent years, however, still there exists a pressing need for cost-effective therapies with pan genotypic activity and therapies targeting niche HCV population with comorbities and resistant to earlier therapies. The objective of the current study is to identify potential anti-HCV agents from FDA approved drugs that are already in the market for a different disease-Drug repurposing approach. A combination of computational chemistry and computational biology techniques was used to discover potential therapies for hepatitis C targeting the NS5B Thumb I allosteric site. Computational chemistry analysis emphasized the fact that fluvastatin, a lipid lowering agent, and olopatadine, an antihistamine, exhibited good binding affinity to NS5B. In addition, gene set enrichment analysis brought to light the significant overlap between disease characteristic features and the mechanism of action of fluvastatin and olopatadine. The current study concludes the potentially beneficial use of fluvastatin in niche hepatitis C patient population suffering from nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases.

Pharmacokinetics of intranasal mometasone in the fixed-dose combination GSP301 versus two monotherapy intranasal mometasone formulations.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate developed as a single nasal spray (NS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative bioavailability of mometasone administered as GSP301 FDC versus two mometasone monotherapy NS formulations. METHODS: In this single-dose, open-label, crossover study, healthy adults (age range, 18-65 years) were randomized equally to one of six treatment sequences for three 72-hour treatment periods with GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg-mometasone 50 µg), the mometasone furoate monotherapy component of GSP301 (MF-sponsor, 50 µg), and U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved mometasone (MF, 50 µg); all the treatments were administered as two sprays per nostril. To evaluate the relative bioavailability of mometasone, pharmacokinetic (PK) estimates, the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the area under the plasma concentration time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last time point with measurable concentration (AUC0-t), and AUC from time 0 to time infinity (AUC0-∞) were compared by analysis of variance. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 30 healthy subjects were randomized. Most subjects were white men who were not obese, mean age of ∼43 years. The geometric mean ratios for natural log transformed Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of mometasone in GSP301 to MF-sponsor were 113.83, 118.36, and 118.50, respectively. For GSP301 and MF, geometric mean ratios for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were 141.84, 109.92, and 115.14, respectively. The percentages of subjects who reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were 10.0%, 13.3%, and 10.3% for GSP301, MF-sponsor, and MF treatments, respectively. All TEAEs were mild, and none resulted in discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Mometasone bioavailability with GSP301 was comparable with MF-sponsor and MF monotherapies. A slightly higher Cmax was observed with GSP301 than with MF, but AUC was comparable. The addition of olopatadine to mometasone in GSP301 did not considerably affect the PK of mometasone. GSP301 was well tolerated, with only mild adverse events reported.

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.

Efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1%, emedastine difumarate 0.05%, and loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for Chinese children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized vehicle-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a disease of various agents that affects the physical and mental health of children. Although the most effective therapy has not been found so far, it is essential to explore the considerable therapeutic method. We compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine, emedastine, loteprednol etabonate (LE), and vehicle for treating seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) in Chinese children. METHODS: Eighty cases of 160 eyes aged from 5 to 10 years with SAC were available and those subjects were randomly distributed into 4 groups. Both their eyes received olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% twice a day, emedastine difumarate 0.05% twice a day, or LE 0.5% 4 times a day, respectively, whereas those of the control group received artificial tears (AT) 0.5% 3 times a day. This study was conducted successfully and the observations were collected before treatment and on day 8 (±1 day) and day 15 (±2 days) afterward. The principal measurement of efficacy was focused on the signs and symptoms of the subjects, evaluated before and after treatment, in addition to visual acuity (VA) and fundus oculi. RESULTS: On day 8 (±1 day) and day 15 (±2 days), all the antiallergic agents were found to be more effective than vehicle (p < 0.05) in terms of all the symptoms and signs. However, there was no statistical significance (p ≥ 0.05) shown among the treatment groups. There were no evident changes in VA and no clinically significant changes were observed in fundus oculi. CONCLUSION: After the treatment, the efficacy presented a similar distribution among the trial groups.

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.