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.

Synthesis and Target Identification of Benzoxepane Derivatives as Potential Anti-Neuroinflammatory Agents for Ischemic Stroke.

Benzoxepane derivatives were designed and synthesized, and one hit compound emerged as being effective in vitro with low toxicity. In vivo, this hit compound ameliorated both sickness behavior through anti-inflammation in LPS-induced neuroinflammatory mice model and cerebral ischemic injury through anti-neuroinflammation in rats subjected to transient middle cerebral artery occlusion. Target fishing for the hit compound using photoaffinity probes led to identification of PKM2 as the target protein responsible for anti-inflammatory effect of the hit compound. Furthermore, the hit exhibited an anti-neuroinflammatory effect in vitro and in vivo by inhibiting PKM2-mediated glycolysis and NLRP3 activation, indicating PKM2 as a novel target for neuroinflammation and its related brain disorders. This hit compound has a better safety profile compared to shikonin, a reported PKM2 inhibitor, identifying it as a lead compound in targeting PKM2 for the treatment of inflammation-related diseases.

Lichen-derived compounds show potential for central nervous system therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Natural products from lichens are widely investigated for their biological properties, yet their potential as central nervous system (CNS) therapeutic agents is less explored. PURPOSE: The present study investigated the neuroactive properties of selected lichen compounds (atranorin, perlatolic acid, physodic acid and usnic acid), for their neurotrophic, neurogenic and acetylcholine esterase (AChE) activities. METHODS: Neurotrophic activity (neurite outgrowth) was determined using murine neuroblastoma Neuro2A cells. A MTT assay was performed to assess the cytotoxicity of compounds at optimum neurotrophic activity. Neuro2A cells treated with neurotrophic lichen compounds were used for RT-PCR to evaluate the induction of genes that code for the neurotrophic markers BDNF and NGF. Immunoblotting was used to assess acetyl H3 and H4 levels, the epigenetic markers associated with neurotrophic and/or neurogenic activity. The neurogenic property of the compounds was determined using murine hippocampal primary cultures. AChE inhibition activity was performed using a modified Ellman's esterase method. RESULTS: Lichen compounds atranorin, perlatolic acid, physodic acid and (+)-usnic acid showed neurotrophic activity in a preliminary cell-based screening based on Neuro2A neurite outgrowth. Except for usnic acid, no cytotoxic effects were observed for the two depsides (atranorin and perlatolic acid) and the alkyl depsidone (physodic acid). Perlatolic acid appears to be promising, as it also exhibited AChE inhibition activity and potent proneurogenic activity. The neurotrophic lichen compounds (atranorin, perlatolic acid, physodic acid) modulated the gene expression of BDNF and NGF. In addition, perlatolic acid showed increased protein levels of acetyl H3 and H4 in Neuro2A cells. CONCLUSION: These lichen depsides and depsidones showed neuroactive properties in vitro (Neuro2A cells) and ex vivo (primary neural stem or progenitor cells), suggesting their potential to treat CNS disorders.

Comparison of the efficacy of olopatadine and fexofenadine in chronic idiopathic urticaria patients: a crossover study.

Olopatadine is one of the second-generation H1 antihistamines that were used for treating allergic disorders initially in Asia, and now also in Western countries. Whereas several trials compared the efficacy on chronic urticaria among second-generation H1 antihistamines, no study has directly compared the clinical efficacy between olopatadine and other H1 antihistamines in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). In this study, we address this issue for the first time and conclude that olopatadine is a good candidate for the treatment of CIU.

Efficacy of epinastine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in allergic conjunctivitis by conjunctival cedar pollen allergen challenge.

BACKGROUND: Epinastine hydrochloride is a selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist that also inhibits IgE receptor-mediated histamine release from mast cells. OBJECTIVE: To show the superiority of epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution (epinastine) to placebo ophthalmic solution (placebo) and noninferiority to olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution (olopatadine) for cedar pollen antigen-induced ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia. METHODS: The study was conducted in ophthalmologically asymptomatic adult volunteers with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge test. Subjects were randomized into 3 groups (n = 87) to evaluate superiority to placebo (visits 4 to 6) and 2 groups (n = 86) to evaluate noninferiority to olopatadine (visit 7). At each visit, a single administration of the study medication was instilled at 15 minutes (visit 4), 4 hours (visit 5), 8 hours (visit 6), and 4 hours (visit 7) before the conjunctival allergen challenge test. Ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia of allergic conjunctivitis were assessed after the conjunctival allergen challenge test. RESULTS: For the primary end point, epinastine showed superiority to placebo for the inhibition of ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia induced at 4 hours after the dose (equivalent to 4-times-daily dosing). For the secondary end points, epinastine significantly inhibited itching and conjunctival hyperemia induced at 15 minutes and 8 hours after the dose (equivalent to 2-times-daily dosing) compared with placebo. In addition, epinastine demonstrated noninferiority to olopatadine for ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia. No adverse drug reactions or serious adverse events were reported throughout the study, indicating that epinastine has a good safety profile. CONCLUSION: Epinastine is effective and safe for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01363700.

Current options and emerging therapies for anterior ocular inflammatory disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ophthalmic disorders are highly prevalent in the United States, with approximately 3.5 million individuals aged at least 40 either blind or having impaired vision. This article reviews the current leading agents and pipeline therapies for the treatment of anterior ocular inflammatory disease (AOID). RECENT FINDINGS: There has been great progress in the understanding of ocular pathophysiology in recent years. Although current treatments for AOID are effective and well tolerated in many patients, a continued demand persists for more efficacious alternatives to the limited modalities available to clinicians. SUMMARY: Several promising modalities for AOID, particularly for allergic conjunctivitis, immune treatments for uveitis and dry eye syndrome are in late-stage development that could offer optimal treatment paradigm once available in the clinic.

Type 1 allergy-induced endolymphatic hydrops and the suppressive effect of H1-receptor antagonist (olopatadine hydrochloride).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether endolymphatic hydrops (EH) is experimentally induced by type 1 (or immediate) hypersensitivity allergic reaction and to investigate the inhibitory action of a histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist (olopatadine hydrochloride [OLO-Hy]) on allergic EH induced by systemic immune challenge with 2,4-dinitrophenylated-Ascaris (DNP-As). METHODS: The experimental animals were actively sensitized with DNP-As twice at a 4-week interval and were provoked by an injection of DNP-BSA including DNP-As 1 week after the second sensitization. The OLO-Hy (+) group received oral administration of OLO-Hy (30 mg/kg) 1 hour before the provocation, whereas the OLO-Hy (-) group received distilled water. The temporal bones in all animals were light microscopically examined to assess the degree of EH quantitatively and the expression of degranulated mast cells in the endolymphatic sac. RESULTS: Endolymphatic hydrops was observed 1, 6, 12, and 24 hours after the last sensitization in the OLO-Hy (-) group but was not observed in the OLO-Hy (+) group. Quantitative analysis of the increase ratios (IRs) of the cross-sectional area of the scala media revealed that the IRs of the OLO-Hy (-) group were significantly greater compared with those of the control group (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in the IRs between the OLO-Hy (-) and OLO-Hy (+) groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The systemic sensitization with DNP-As produced allergy-induced experimental EH by type 1 hypersensitivity allergic reaction, and the development of this EH was prevented by histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome following use of metronidazole in a dental patient.

Metronidazole alone rarely causes Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS). We present a case of an elderly male patient who, following metronidazole use, developed neurological symptoms followed by pain and blisters on both soles, erythema of face and neck, scrotal itching and erosion, and hemorrhagic encrustation around the lips and oral mucous membrane. Initial neurological symptoms followed by mucocutaneous manifestation of SJS following metronidazole use is probably a new presentation of this case.

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis: a severe allergic eye disease with remodeling changes.

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is an unusually severe sight-threatening allergic eye disease, occurring mainly in children. Conventional therapy for allergic conjunctivitis is generally not adequate for VKC. Pediatricians and allergists are often not familiar with the severe clinical symptoms and signs of VKC. As untreated VKC can lead to permanent visual loss, pediatric allergists should be aware of the management and therapeutic options for this disease to allow patients to enter clinical remission with the least side effects and sequelae. Children with VKC present with severe ocular symptoms, that is, severe eye itching and irritation, constant tearing, red eye, eye discharge, and photophobia. On examination, giant papillae are frequently observed on the upper tarsal conjunctiva (cobblestoning appearance), with some developing gelatinous infiltrations around the limbus surrounding the cornea (Horner-Trantas dot). Conjunctival injections are mostly severe with thick mucus ropy discharge. Eosinophils are the predominant cells found in the tears and eye discharge. Common therapies include topical antihistamines and dual-acting agents, such as lodoxamide and olopatadine. These are infrequently sufficient and topical corticosteroids are often required for the treatment of flare ups. Ocular surface remodeling leads to severe suffering and complications, such as corneal ulcers/scars. Other complications include side effects from chronic topical steroids use, such as increased intraocular pressure, glaucoma, cataract and infections. Alternative therapies for VKC include immunomodulators, such as cyclosporine A and tacrolimus. Surgery is reserved for those with complications and should be handled by ophthalmologists with special expertise. Newer research on the pathogenesis of VKC is reviewed in this article. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis is a very important allergic eye disease in children. Complications and remodeling changes are unique and can lead to blindness. Understanding of pathogenesis of VKC may lead to better therapy for these unfortunate patients.

Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine during a 24-h period: a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, placebo-controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis.

The antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine, in standard-dose application described in their information (5 mg twice a day for olopatadine; 5 mg once daily for levocetirizine), were examined from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, placebo-controlled study of 12 healthy volunteers on histamine-induced flare and wheal response using an iontophoresis technique. The suppressive effect of olopatadine on the wheals induced by a 0.1-mA histamine iontophoresis lasted for 24 h after dosing. Both drugs inhibited flare induced by histamine iontophoresis almost completely until 24 h after the first administration. Suppression of the 0.2-mA-induced wheal response by levocetirizine, taken once daily, decreased with time, although 0.1-mA-induced flare was almost completely suppressed by the drug. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2-mA histamine iontophoresis. Compared with the placebo, the two drugs significantly suppressed the subjective itching assessed by visual analog scale at all intervals. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug- and placebo-treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine seems to be more potent than levocetirizine when administrated in a standard dose. In conclusion, mild to moderate urticaria could be controlled by standard application as described in their information. On the other hand, severe urticaria could be managed by a standard application of olopatadine, but levocetirizine may need an additional dose to control severe urticaria.

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.

Advantages of histamine H4 receptor antagonist usage with H1 receptor antagonist for the treatment of murine allergic contact dermatitis.

Histamine facilitates development of eczematous lesions in chronic allergic contact dermatitis. In addition to the well-known corticosteroid treatments, H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists also have been used. This study observed effects of histamine H4 receptor (H4R) antagonist usage with H1R antagonist in a murine chronic allergic contact dermatitis model, developed by repeated percutaneous challenge to the dorsal skin with 2,4,6-trinitro-1-chlorobenzene (TNCB). The H1R antagonist olopatadine hydrochloride and/or the H4R antagonist JNJ7777120 was then administered. Combination therapy was more effective than H1R antagonist monotherapy. Serum IgE and levels of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-6 (Th2 cytokines) in eczematous lesions decreased with combined therapy. Combined therapy with H1R and H4R antagonists counteracts the disadvantages of each as monotherapeutic agents and potentially represents a new strategy for the treatment of chronic allergic contact dermatitis.

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.

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.

[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.

Two-week comparison study of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% versus azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% in patients with vasomotor rhinitis.

Olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) and azelastine nasal spray 137 micrograms (AZE) are effective in treating allergic rhinitis and AZE is indicated for nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (VMR). This study evaluates the relative safety and efficacy of OLO and AZE in patients with VMR. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study compared OLO (an investigational use) with AZE over 14 days in patients (n = 129) ≥12 years of age with chronic VMR. Efficacy included the severity of nasal symptom scores. Safety included adverse events (AEs) and nasal examinations. Patient perceptions of treatment satisfaction and changes in allergy condition were determined using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication and Patient Global Assessment scores. In the OLO and AZE groups, reflective scores for individual nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and sneezing) and total nasal VMR symptom scores decreased significantly from baseline to day 14 (p < 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed (p > 0.05). No serious AEs were reported in either group. Overall, 22 and 20 AEs were reported in the OLO and AZE groups, respectively. The most common AE was taste disturbance, reported by three (5.3%) and six (10.3%) patients in the OLO and AZE groups, respectively. Patients in both groups reported similar treatment satisfaction scores and a majority of patients in both groups perceived an overall improvement in their rhinitis condition. OLO has a similar efficacy and safety profile to AZE for the management of VMR in patients ≥12 years of age.