Conjunctival Allergen Challenge Research Articles

The Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert Use in Patients with Chronic Seasonal/Perennial Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of DEXTENZA, an intracanalicular dexamethasone insert, for the treatment of seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis. Multiple databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and Scopus, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of DEXTENZA with a placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence, and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was employed to assess bias. Four RCTs involving 323 participants met the eligibility criteria, and all had a low risk of bias. A meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the mean CAC change for conjunctival itching, with low heterogeneity among measurements at 3 minutes (P<0.00001, I2=47%), 5 minutes (P<0.00001, I2=46%), and 7 minutes (P<0.00001, I2=41%). Additionally, the meta-analysis found a statistically significant increase in the mean CAC change for conjunctival redness with low heterogeneity (P<0.00001, I2=15%). The pooled analysis showed no significant difference (P=0.57, I2=0%) between the DEXTENZA and placebo groups in the frequency of adverse events. DEXTENZA has emerged as a promising and viable treatment option for patients with seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis and is an effective alternative to current therapeutic modalities.

Bilastine 0.6% preservative-free eye drops, an effective once-daily treatment to reduce signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis: A pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials.

Allergic conjunctivitis is the most common type of ocular allergy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new once-daily, preservative-free, bilastine 0.6% eye drop formulation for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Two double-masked, vehicle controlled, clinical studies (a Phase 2 Dose Ranging Study and a Phase 3 Efficacy Study) were conducted to assess the efficacy of bilastine ophthalmic solution for the treatment of signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Both studies used the Ora-CAC® Conjunctival Allergen Challenge (CAC) Model to allow observations of allergic responses under controlled conditions. Each study was analyzed separately and then combined to create an integrated dataset. Efficacy was achieved for the primary efficacy endpoint of ocular itching for three bilastine concentrations (0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6%) at 15 minutes and 8 hours post-instillation and bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution was also efficacious at 16 hours post-instillation. Bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution demonstrated non-inferiority to ketotifen 0.025% at the onset of action. From the integrated data set, differences between vehicle and bilastine 0.6% were significant at all time points both at onset (15 minutes) and at a prolonged duration (16 hours) after instillation. This multi-trial assessment suggests that bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution is efficacious for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, with a rapid and prolonged duration of action, and has a favorable safety profile. The added convenience of a once-a-day dosing regimen may contribute to patient adherence and improve their quality of life.

Efficacy of once-daily ophthalmic bilastine for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a dose-finding study.

Bilastine is a non-sedating second-generation antihistamine for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. This trial aimed to evaluate the optimal dose, efficacy, and safety of a newly developed once-daily preservative-free ophthalmic formulation of bilastine for allergic conjunctivitis. This phase 2, single-center, double-masked, randomized study evaluated the efficacy of 3 doses of a bilastine ophthalmic formulation (0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6%) compared to vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The primary efficacy endpoint was ocular itching reduction. The Ora-CAC® Conjunctival Allergen Challenge model was used to assess ocular and nasal symptoms at the onset of action (15 minutes), 8- and 16-hours post-treatment. Tolerance and safety were also evaluated. A total of 121 adults with seasonal and/or perennial ocular allergy were randomized. Bilastine ophthalmic formulation 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.6% were significantly superior (p>0.001) to vehicle for the treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5 and 7 minutes post-challenge at onset of action (15 minutes) and 8 hours post-treatment. Bilastine 0.6% was also effective at 16 hours post-treatment. Treatment differences for bilastine 0.6% were statistically significant (p<0.001) compared to vehicle at all timepoints for tearing, eyelid swelling, and nasal symptoms. No relevant adverse events were observed. All the tested ophthalmic bilastine doses were efficacious in rapidly reducing ocular itching. The 0.6% formulation was effective up to 16 hours post-treatment, making it suitable for once-daily administration. The new formulation was safe and well tolerated.

Effects of Punctal Occlusion on Ocular Itching and Conjunctival Redness Associated with Allergic Conjunctivitis

Purpose Punctal occlusion using punctal plugs has been successfully used to treat the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. However, the effects of punctal occlusion on the symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis (AC) have been less well documented. There is some concern among clinicians that punctal occlusion may make signs/symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis worse by trapping allergens on the eye. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to address this question and thus assess the effect of punctal occlusion alone on ocular itching and conjunctival redness associated with AC. Methods This was a pooled post hoc analysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo insert-controlled clinical trials in subjects with AC. Enrolled subjects were generally healthy adults with ocular allergies and a positive skin test reaction to perennial and/or seasonal allergens. The study used a modified version of the traditional conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model, which included multiple, repeated allergen challenges following placement of the intracanalicular insert. Subjects were rechallenged on Days 6, 7 and 8; Days 13, 14 and 15; and Days 26, 27 and 28. Results The data set included 128 subjects that were administered placebo. Baseline mean (SD) ocular itching and conjunctival redness scores were 3.52 (0.44) and 2.97 (0.39), respectively. On post-insertion Days 7, 14 and 28, mean itching scores were 2.62, 2.26 and 1.91, respectively, representing 26%, 36% and 46% itching reductions, respectively (p < 0.001). On Days 7, 14 and 28, mean conjunctival redness scores were 1.98, 1.90, and 2.08, respectively, representing 33%, 36%, and 30% redness reductions, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions Based on this post hoc pooled analysis, punctal occlusion with a resorbable hydrogel intracanalicular insert did not worsen ocular itching or conjunctival redness in this patient population.

Birch allergen challenges in allergic conjunctivitis using standard conjunctival allergen challenge and environmental exposure chamber.

BackgroundEnvironmental exposure chambers (EECs) have been used extensively to study allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Few studies have been published using EECs in conjunctivitis only, and none have used conjunctival allergen challenge as a selection criterion. The present study validated ALYATEC EEC in allergic conjunctivitis to birch pollen.MethodsSixteen patients with a positive conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) were exposed to 60 ng/m3 of Bet v 1 in an EEC on two consecutive days for a maximum of 4 h to validate EEC exposure to birch. Reproducibility was tested among seven of the patients. A conjunctival positive scoring during the CAC and the EEC exposure was defined as a Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) ≥ 5.ResultsFifty percent of patients had a conjunctival positive scoring during first exposure and 75% during second exposure. The mean time to a conjunctival response was 81.2 ± 33.9 min and 101.6 ± 57 (P > 0.05) during first and second exposure, respectively. No difference in TOSS occurred between the two exposures. The time necessary to obtain a positive response during the CAC was significantly shorter than with the EEC. The estimated quantity of Bet v 1 inducing a positive response was 0.07 ± 0.03 ng (exposure 1), 0.07 ± 0.07 ng (exposure 2), 980 ± 784 ng (CAC). Conjunctival positive scoring and quantity of Bet v 1 was reproducible in all six EEC exposures.ConclusionsEarly conjunctival responses induced by birch allergen exposures in EEC were different than from those identified with direct instillation during CAC. EEC appears to be closer to natural exposure than CAC.

Clinically Relevant Activity of the Novel RASP Inhibitor Reproxalap in Allergic Conjunctivitis: The Phase 3 ALLEVIATE Trial

To assess the post-acute activity and clinical utility of reproxalap, a novel reactive aldehyde species (RASP) inhibitor, versus vehicle in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Parallel-group, double-masked, randomized Phase 3 trial. Two topical ocular reproxalap concentrations (0.25% and 0.5%) were evaluated versus vehicle in patients with allergic conjunctivitis randomized 1:1:1 and treated with test article 10 minutes prior to conjunctival seasonal allergen challenge. The primary endpoint was area under the post-acute ocular itching score (range=0-4) curve from 10 to 60 minutes after challenge. The key secondary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with ≥2 points improvement from their peak ocular itching score at baseline. A total of 318 patients were randomized at 11 US sites. Both concentrations of reproxalap (0.25% and 0.5%) achieved the primary endpoint (P < .0001 and P=.003, respectively) and the key secondary endpoint (P=.0005 and P=.02, respectively). Time to complete resolution of ocular itching was statistically faster for both reproxalap concentrations than for vehicle (P < .0001 and P=.001, respectively). No safety or tolerability concerns were noted. The most common adverse event was mild and transient instillation site irritation. Reproxalap was effective at reducing ocular itching in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. Reproxalap activity was clinically relevant, as assessed by responder-based and distributional analyses. ALLEVIATE represents one of the first allergic conjunctivitis Phase 3 trials of a novel mechanism of action in decades, and is unique among conjunctival allergen challenge trials in assessing clinical relevance with standard and validated techniques.

Phase 3 Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of a Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in Patients With Allergic Conjunctivitis

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a dexamethasone intracanalicular ocular insert for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trial. Subjects with allergic conjunctivitis were randomized 1:1 to receive a dexamethasone insert or a placebo insert in both eyes and were evaluated using a modified version of the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. After inserts were placed in office, a series of 4 closely spaced post-insertion CACs were conducted at weeks 1, 2, and 4 across approximately 30 days. Primary efficacy endpoints, assessed at week-1 CAC-day 8, were reported by subjects of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post CAC and investigator-evaluated conjunctival redness at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post CAC. For the primary endpoints, dexamethasone inserts showed statistically significantly lower mean ocular itching scores than placebo at all time points (P <.001), with differences favoring dexamethasone inserts over placebo (0.86, 0.98, and 0.96 units at 3, 5, and 7 minutes, respectively) and statistically significantly lower conjunctival redness scores at 20 minutes (P <.05) but not at 7 or 15 minutes (P ≥.05). Results also showed statistically significantly less itching and conjunctival redness at 31 and 29 of 33 other time points, respectively (P <.05). There were no serious adverse events; 1 subject had elevated intraocular pressure in both eyes. Data presented in this study demonstrate the potential for a single, physician-administered dexamethasone intracanalicular insert to provide relief of ocular itching for up to 4 weeks in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

Phase III trials examining the efficacy of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared to vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model

PurposeThe purpose of these Phase III studies was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared with vehicle in the treatment of allergen-induced conjunctivitis using the Ora conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC)® model.MethodsThe single-center (Study 1) and multi-center (Study 2), double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled, parallel group, CAC studies were conducted over ~5 weeks and four study visits. The study design only differed in entry criteria: Study 2 required more severe allergic conjunctivitis symptoms. Subjects were screened for an allergen response at Visits 1 and 2 and then randomized at Visit 3. Approximately 100 subjects were randomized in each study. The primary efficacy endpoints were ocular itching and conjunctival redness 15 minutes and 8 hours post-treatment, post-CAC.ResultsCetirizine treatment administered 15 minutes or 8 hours prior to CAC resulted in significantly lower ocular itching at all time points post-CAC (P<0.0001) compared to vehicle in both studies. Conjunctival redness measured by the investigator was significantly lower after cetirizine treatment compared to vehicle at 7 minutes post-CAC at both 15 minutes and 8 hours post-treatment in both studies (P<0.05). All secondary endpoints were in favor and confirmatory of cetirizine efficacy with significant improvement in chemosis, eyelid swelling, tearing, ciliary redness, and episcleral redness, as well as nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, nasal pruritus, ear or palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) post-CAC. The most robust treatment differences were observed in Study 2 where more severe symptoms were required for study entry (P<0.05). No safety concerns for cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% were identified.ConclusionCetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% was shown to be efficacious in the treatment of ocular and nasal signs and symptoms associated with allergic conjunctivitis and demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Clinical efficacy was demonstrated with a 15-minute onset of action and añ8-hour duration of action.

Projected 24-hour post-dose ocular itching scores post-treatment with olopatadine 0.7% versus 0.2%

Olopatadine is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer used for treating allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine 0.7% has been recently approved for daily dosing in the US, which supersedes the previously approved 0.2% strength. The objective of this analysis was to characterize patients who have better itching relief at 24 h when taking olopatadine 0.7% treatment instead of olopatadine 0.2% (in terms of proportions of responses) and relate this to the severity of baseline itching as an indirect metric of a patient’s sensitivity to antihistamines. A differential odds model was developed using data from two conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies to characterize individual-level and population-level response to ocular itching following olopatadine treatment and the data was analyzed retrospectively. This modeling analysis was designed to predict 24 h ocular itching scores and to quantify the differences in 24 h itching relief following treatment with olopatadine 0.2% versus 0.7% in patients with moderate-to-high baseline itching. A one-compartment kinetic-pharmacodynamic Emax model was used to determine the effect of olopatadine. Impact of baseline itching severity, vehicle effect and the drug effect on the overall itching scores post-treatment were explicitly incorporated in the model. The model quantified trends observed in the clinical data with regards to both mean scores and the proportions of patients responding to olopatadine treatment. The model predicts a higher proportion of patients in the olopatadine 0.7% versus 0.2% group will experience relief within 24 h. This prediction was confirmed with retrospective clinical data analysis. The number of allergy patients relieved with olopatadine 0.7% increased with higher baseline itching severity scores, when compared to olopatadine 0.2%.

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

BackgroundBepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution (BBOS) 1.5% is a topical antihistamine for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis (AC). Allergic rhinitis and AC are common comorbid conditions. We explored the efficacy of BBOS 1.5% in alleviating nasal symptoms in an integrated analysis of two Phase III conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies and a Phase IV environmental allergen study.MethodsIn the Phase III trials, a CAC was performed 15 minutes, 8 hours, and 16 hours following ocular instillation of BBOS 1.5% (n=78) or placebo (n=79), and subjects evaluated nasal symptoms. In the environmental study, subjects instilled BBOS 1.5% (n=123) or placebo (n=122) twice daily and nasal symptoms were evaluated over 2 weeks.ResultsIn the Phase III trials, BBOS 1.5% had reduced CAC-induced nasal congestion and pruritus at 15 minutes and 8 hours postdosing and rhinorrhea and a non-ocular composite-symptom score (sum of nasal scores plus ear or palate pruritus) at all time points postdosing (all P≤0.01 vs placebo). In the Phase IV environmental study, BBOS 1.5% reduced sneezing and nasal pruritus over 2 weeks and median number of days to improvement of nasal pruritus and total nasal symptom score (sum for rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal pruritus, and nasal congestion; P≤0.04 vs placebo). Additionally, investigator-reported improvement in overall ocular (pruritus, hyperemia, tearing) and nasal symptoms was greater with BBOS 1.5% vs placebo (P≤0.03).ConclusionResults of these exploratory analyses indicate that topical ocular BBOS 1.5% reduced nasal symptoms, supporting its use for alleviating rhinitis symptoms associated with AC.

Effect of Mandarin Orange Yogurt on Allergic Conjunctivitis Induced by Conjunctival Allergen Challenge.

To evaluate the effects of mandarin orange yogurt containing nobiletin and β-lactoglobulin on the allergic conjunctivitis induced by a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC). Experiment 1 was performed on 26 asymptomatic patients (age, 25.3 ± 5.3 years) with proven seasonal allergic conjunctivitis due to cedar pollen. We compared the degree of conjunctivitis induced by CAC before and after ingesting mandarin orange yogurt for 2 weeks. Experiment 2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed on 31 patients (age, 32.5 ± 12.2 years). A diet containing mandarin orange yogurt was compared to a diet containing yogurt lacking the mandarin orange on the conjunctivitis induced by CAC. The temperature of the inferior bulbar conjunctiva was measured before and 20 minutes after the CAC with an ocular surface thermographer (OST). The degree of conjunctival injection and chemosis was graded by slit-lamp biomicroscopy. The changes in the symptoms were evaluated by a questionnaire. In experiment 1, the scores of redness (3.07 ± 3.03 vs. 1.05 ± 1.70), chemosis (2.84 ± 2.27 vs. 0.81 ± 1.11), itching (4.34 ± 3.05 vs. 1.39 ± 2.12), and temperature (0.73 ± 0.42°C vs. 0.45 ± 0.43°C) were significantly lower (P < 0.001) after a diet of mandarin orange yogurt for 2 weeks. In experiment 2, the scores of redness (1.03 ± 0.18 vs. 1.28 ± 0.52; P = 0.0156), itching (1.93 ± 1.92 vs. 2.82 ± 2.21; P = 0.0133), and surface temperature (0.54 ± 0.21°C vs. 0.31 ± 0.25°C; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the mandarin orange yogurt group than in the control yogurt group. Mandarin orange yogurt can be an effective nutritional intervention for allergic conjunctivitis.

Pooled analysis of two studies evaluating efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis

PurposeTwo individual phase 3 conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies of similar design have assessed the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl) 0.77% for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the integrated efficacy and safety of olopatadine HCl 0.77% from a larger dataset by pooling data from the two individual CAC studies.MethodsData were pooled from two phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active- and vehicle-controlled CAC studies. The primary comparison was on ocular itching scores between olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus vehicle (at onset and 24 hours) and olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% (at 24 hours). Additional end points included conjunctival redness, total redness, and proportion of itching responders at onset and 24-hour duration of CAC. For both primary and secondary analysis, mixed model repeated measures analysis was used, except for proportion of ocular itching responders. Sensitivity analyses were carried out using a two-sample t-test.ResultsThis analysis included 448 patients. Olopatadine HCl 0.77% was superior to vehicle (P<0.0001) at onset and 24-hour duration of action (difference in means: −1.14 to −1.52) and to olopatadine 0.2% (P=0.0009) at 24-hour duration of action in relieving ocular itch. Additionally, olopatadine HCl 0.77% substantially reduced conjunctival redness and total redness over vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% at onset and 24-hour duration of action. At 24 hours CAC, there were a higher proportion of itching responders with olopatadine HCl 0.77% compared to vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% (difference in proportion of responders: 43.17%, P<0.0001, and 17.25%, P=0.0012, respectively). No safety concerns were identified.ConclusionThis analysis confirms the findings from the individual studies. The rapid onset and prolonged duration of action (for 24 hours) of olopatadine HCl 0.77% supports once-daily dosing in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Efficacy and safety of an eye wash solution in allergic conjunctivitis after conjunctival allergen challenge

Efficacy and safety of an eye wash solution in allergic conjunctivitis after conjunctival allergen challenge

Evaluating the efficacy of epinastine ophthalmic solution using a conjunctivitis allergen challenge model in patients with birch pollen allergic conjunctivitis

BackgroundThe efficacy of epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution for pollen allergic conjunctivitis has already been shown in a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) test using cedar pollen as a challenge. The present study investigated the efficacy of this solution against birch pollen conjunctivitis in a CAC test. MethodsTen adult subjects (eight males and two females) with asymptomatic birch pollen conjunctivitis were enrolled in this study. The average age of the subjects was 41.1 years. This study was conducted during a period without birch pollen dispersion. In each subject, the epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution was instilled in one eye, and an artificial tear fluid was instilled in the fellow eye in a double-blind manner. Five minutes or 4 h after the drug instillation, both eyes were challenged with an optimal concentration of birch pollen, and ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia were then graded. Tears were collected before the drug instillation and 20 min after the pollen challenge, and the histamine level was measured. ResultsThe ocular itching scores and palpebral conjunctival hyperemia scores of the epinastine-treated eyes were significantly lower than those of the contralateral control eyes when the eyes were pretreated with the drug 4 h before the CAC. There was a significant correlation between the tear histamine level and mean ocular itching score of three time points (3, 5 and 10 min) following the CAC in the control eyes but not the epinastine-treated eyes. ConclusionsEpinastine is effective in suppressing ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia in birch pollen conjunctivitis.

Effect of alcaftadine 0.25% on ocular itch associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis: a pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.

PurposeSeasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis represent the majority of cases of ocular allergy. This analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% in preventing ocular itching associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis.Subjects and methodsPooled data from two double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis were analyzed. Subjects randomized to receive treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% or placebo were challenged with seasonal (grass, ragweed, trees) or perennial (cat dander, cat hair, dog dander, dust mites, cockroach) allergens, 16 hours after treatment instillation. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 minutes post-CAC. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 minutes post-CAC. The proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score <1) and zero itch (itch score =0), and safety were also assessed.ResultsA total of 189 subjects enrolled in the two studies were treated with alcaftadine or placebo. Overall, 129 subjects were challenged with seasonal allergens and 60 subjects were challenged with perennial allergens. Alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a statistically significant reduction in mean itch score at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-CAC compared with placebo in subjects challenged with seasonal allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points) and those challenged with perennial allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points). A higher percentage of subjects treated with alcaftadine compared with placebo achieved minimal itch (P≤0.001 versus placebo at all time points) and zero itch (P<0.05 at all time points except 7 minutes for perennial) when challenged with either seasonal or perennial allergens. No treatment-related or serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionOnce-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was well tolerated and demonstrated effective relief of ocular itching in subjects challenged with allergens classic for triggering either seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

Conjunctival Provocation Tests: A Predictive Factor for Patients' Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis Symptoms

No parameters currently exist that can reliably predict the impact of preseasonal immunotherapy on the symptoms occurring during the season. The purpose of our studies was to prove a correlation between preseasonal conjunctival allergen challenge and coseasonal primary clinical endpoints using the total combined score, ie, a combination of symptoms and medication score, as the primary outcome parameter. Twelve weeks before both the birch and the grass pollen seasons, 2 separate prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled studies were conducted followed by posttrial observations for each study during the active season. In the studies, patients who reacted to conjunctival allergen challenge were treated with sublingual immunotherapy tablets that contain either birch and/or alder or grass pollen allergoids. In all, 158 patients were included in the grass and 160 in the tree pollen study; of these, 100 and 109 patients, respectively, took part in the posttrial observations. When comparing patients with and without a positive reaction in the final conjunctival allergen challenge, the results revealed a significant difference in the total combined score (grass: P < .001; birch: P = .025). The same applied to the rescue medication score (P = .005; P = .025). A significant difference regarding the rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score was shown in the grass pollen study (P = .002), and the difference of well days was significant in the tree pollen study (P = .049). When comparing patients based on their reaction to allergen challenge after immunotherapy, each study leads to similarly significant results. Therefore, conjunctival allergen challenge can be used effectively as a parameter to predict allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms during the season in patients treated with preseasonal sublingual immunotherapy tablets. Whether this can be transferred to untreated patients needs to be determined.

Efficacy of olopatadine versus epinastine for treating allergic conjunctivitis caused by Japanese cedar pollen: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine versus epinastine in healthy Japanese adults with a history of allergic conjunctivitis to Japanese cedar pollen.MethodsThis Phase IV double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial comprised three clinical visits over 30 days. Screening tests were performed to identify subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis to Japanese cedar pollen in terms of skin sensitivity and positive bilateral reactions to a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) with Japanese cedar pollen at Visit 1, and confirmation by a positive bilateral CAC reaction at Visit 2. At Visit 3, the subjects were randomized to receive one drop of olopatadine HCl ophthalmic solution 0.1% (olopatadine) in the left or right eye (1:1 ratio). All subjects received one drop of epinastine HCl ophthalmic solution 0.05% (epinastine) in the contralateral eye as an active control. Five min later, the subjects underwent bilateral CAC tests with one drop of the allergen solution at the concentration that elicited positive reactions at Visits 1 and 2. Efficacy outcomes included the severity of ocular itching at 5, 7, and 15 min and the severity of conjunctival hyperemia at 7, 15, and 20 min after the CAC test, as graded by the investigator by biomicroscopy.ResultsFifty people participated in this study (25 per group). Olopatadine significantly reduced ocular itching at 7 and 15 min (both p < 0.05) and conjunctival hyperemia at 7 and 20 min (p = 0.0010 and p < 0.05, respectively) after allergen exposure compared with epinastine. There were no adverse events for either treatment.ConclusionThe results of this single-dose study suggest that olopatadine is superior to epinastine in terms of suppressing ocular itching and hyperemia induced by Japanese cedar pollen during CAC tests. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in real-life settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0156-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ocular itch relief with alcaftadine 0.25% versus olopatadine 0.2% in allergic conjunctivitis: pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.

IntroductionThe efficacy and safety of the once-daily topical ophthalmic solutions, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, in preventing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis were evaluated.MethodsPooled analysis was conducted of two double-masked, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive alcaftadine 0.25%, olopatadine 0.2%, or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 min post-CAC. Ocular itch was determined over all time points measured (3, 5, and 7 min) post-CAC and the proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score <1) and zero itch (itch score = 0) was also assessed.ResultsA total of 284 subjects were enrolled in the two studies. At 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation, alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a significantly lower mean itch score compared with olopatadine 0.2% (0.50 vs. 0.87, respectively; P = 0.0006). Alcaftadine demonstrated a significantly lower mean itch score over all time points compared with olopatadine (0.68 vs. 0.92, respectively; P = 0.0390); both alcaftadine- and olopatadine-treated subjects achieved significantly lower overall mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo (2.10; P < 0.0001 for both actives). Minimal itch over all time points was reported by 76.1% of alcaftadine-treated subjects compared with 58.1% of olopatadine-treated subjects (P = 0.0121). Treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% was safe and well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionOnce-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution demonstrated greater efficacy in prevention of ocular itching compared with olopatadine 0.2% at 3 min post-CAC (primary endpoint), and over all time points, 16 h post-treatment instillation. Alcaftadine and olopatadine both provided effective relief compared with placebo and were generally well tolerated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0155-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

BackgroundEpinastine hydrochloride is a selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist that also inhibits IgE receptor-mediated histamine release from mast cells. ObjectiveTo 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsFor 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. ConclusionEpinastine is effective and safe for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01363700.

Treatment of allergic conjunctivitis with bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5%.

PurposeTo examine the pooled per-protocol ocular end points from two conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) clinical trials of the dual-action antihistamine bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution (BBOS) 1.5%.MethodsTwo Phase III, placebo-controlled, double-masked, randomized clinical trials were conducted at a total of six separate centers using the CAC model of allergic conjunctivitis. The same study design was employed for both clinical trials, with subjects randomly assigned to either BBOS 1.5% (n=78) or placebo (n=79) treatment. Each subject received one eye drop of the test agent bilaterally at different study visits 15 minutes, 8 hours, or 16 hours prior to a CAC. Primary ocular end points included changes in ocular itching reported at 3, 5, and 7 minutes and conjunctival hyperemia assessed at 7, 15, and 20 minutes following each CAC. Secondary ocular end points included chemosis as well as episcleral and ciliary hyperemia judged by investigators, and tearing (scored as either absent or present) and eyelid swelling judged by subjects.ResultsA statistically significant reduction in ocular itching was observed for BBOS 1.5% treatment compared to placebo at all time points (P<0.0001), while measures for onset and 8-hour persistence of action also reached clinical significance (ie, ≥1.0 unit difference) at a majority of time points. In addition, a significant reduction in conjunctival hyperemia was achieved at a majority of time points during the onset of action CAC test. Secondary end points were also significantly improved compared to placebo, most prominently for reduced tearing at all study visits and reduced eyelid swelling at the onset of action and 8-hour study visits. Adverse events were generally mild and transient.ConclusionBBOS 1.5% rapidly reduced CAC-induced ocular itching with duration of effectiveness of at least 8 hours after dosing. Certain secondary signs of inflammation were also significantly reduced.