Mast cell stabilization and anti-histamine effects of olopatadine ophthalmic solution: a review of pre-clinical and clinical research

References

• Dale HH, Laidlaw PP. The physiologic action of beta-imidazolethyamine. J Physiology 1910;41:318
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Staub AM, Bovet D. Action de la thymoxyethyl-diethylamine (929F) et des ethers phenoliques sur le choc anaphylactique du cobaye. CR Soc Biol 1937;125:818
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Katelaris C, Slugg AP, et al. Ocular Immunology in Allergic Diseases of the Eye. Abelson M, editor. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. 2000, pp. 20–7
   Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Stephens DJ, Miller ST, et al. The in vitro and in vivo ocular pharmacology of olopatadine (AL-4943A), an effective anti-allergic/antihistaminic agent. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 1996;12:389–400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharif NA, Xu SX, Miller ST, et al. Characterization of the ocular antiallergic and antihistaminic effects of olopatadine (AL-4943A), a novel drug for treating ocular allergic diseases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996;278:1252–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka H, Ishii A, Kase H. Effect of KW-4679, a novel antiallergic agent, on histamine H1 receptor. Jpn J Pharmacol 1993;61(suppl):87P
   Google Scholar
• Ishii H, Kitamura S, Ohmoti K. Inhibitory effect of KW-4679 on allergic models in rats. Jpn J Pharmacol 1991;55(suppl): 375P
   Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Miller ST, Gamache DA, et al. Comparative effects of topical ocular anti-allergy drugs on human conjunctival mast cells. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1997;79:541–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharif NA, Xu SX, Yanni JM. Olopatadine (AL-4943A): Ligand binding and functional studies on a novel, long acting H1-selective histamine antagonist and anti-allergic agent for use in allergic conjunctivitis. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 1996;12: 401–7
   Google Scholar
• Nonaka H, Otaki S, Ohshima E, et al. Unique binding pocket for KW-4679 in the histamine H1 receptor. Eur J Pharmacol 1998;345:111–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz HR, Stevens RL, Austen KF. Heterogeneity of mammalian mast cells differentiated in vivo and in vitro. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1985;76:250–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irani AMA, Schwartz LB. Mast cell heterogeneity. Clin Exp Allergy 1989;19:143–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hingorani M, Calder V, Buckley RJ, et al. The role of conjunctival epithelial cells in chronic ocular allergic disease. Exp Eye Res 1998;67:491–500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharif NA, Xu SX, Magnino PE, et al. Human conjunctival epithelial cells express histamine-1 receptors coupled to phosphoinositide turnover and intracellular calcium mobilization: Role in ocular allergic diseases. Exp Eye Res 1996;63:169–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Sharif NA, Gamache DA, et al. A current appreciation of sites for pharmacological intervention in allergic conjunctivitis: effects of new topical ocular drugs. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77:33–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yanni JM, Weimer LK, Sharif NA, et al. Inhibition of histamine-induced human conjunctival epithelial cell responses by ocular allergy drugs. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:643–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook EB, Stahl JL, Barney NP, et al. Olopatadine inhibits anti-immunoglobulin E-stimulated conjunctival mast cell upregulation of ICAM-1 expression on conjunctival epithelial cells. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2001;87:424–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook EB, Stahl JL, Barney NP, et al. Olopatadine inhibits TNF-α release from human conjunctival mast cells. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2000;84:504–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockman HL, Momsen MM, Knudtson JR, et al. Interactions of olopatadine and selected antihistamines with model and natural membranes. Ocular Immunol Inflamm 2003;2:247–68
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Chambers WA, Smith LM. Conjunctival Allergen Challenge: A clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:84–8
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Spitalny L. Combined analysis of two studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge model to evaluate olopatadine hydrochloride, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:797–804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi AA, Abelson MB. Double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled controlled clinical study of the mast cell stabilizing effect of treatment with olopatadine in the conjunctival allergen challenge model in humans. Clin Ther 2003;25: 2539–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Pratt S, Mussoline JF, et al. One-visit, randomized, placebo-controlled, conjunctival allergen challenge study of scanning and imaging technology for objective quantification of eyelid swelling in the allergic reaction with contralateral use of olopatadine and artificial tears. Clin Ther 2003;25:2070–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deschenes J, Discepola M, Abelson MB. Comparative evaluation of olopatadine ophthalmic solution (0.1%) versus ketorolac ophthalmic solution (0.5%) using the provocative antigen challenge model. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 1999;228: 47–52
   Google Scholar
• Butrus S, Greiner JV, Discepola M, et al. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and comfort of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and nedocromil sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2000;22:1462–72
   Google Scholar
• Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch G, et al. A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2000;22:826–33
   Google Scholar
• Katelaris CH, Ciprandi G, Missotten L, et al. International Olopatadine Study Group. A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and cromolyn sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Clin Ther 2002;24:1561–75
   Google Scholar
• Spangler DL, Bensch G, Berdy GJ. Evaluation of the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and azelastine hydrochloride 0.5% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2001;23: 1272–80
   Google Scholar
• Berdy GJ, Stoppel JO, Epstein AB. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and loteprednol etabonate 0.2% ophthalmic suspension in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2002;24: 918–29
   Google Scholar
• Lanier BQ, Finegold I, D’Arienzo P, et al. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival challenge model. Curr Med Res Opinion 2004;20:1227–33
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Spangler D, Giovanoni A, et al. Chemosis is an important diagnostic tool for evaluating new ophthalmic anti-allergic agents using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology meeting: Nov 7–12, 1997; San Diego, CA [abstract]
   Google Scholar
• Aguilar AJ. Comparative study of clinical efficacy and tolerance in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis management with 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride versus 0.05% ketotifen fumarate. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2000;230:52–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Artal MN, Luna JD, Discepola M. A forced choice comfort study of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% versus ketotifen fumarate 0.05%. Acta Opthalmol Scand Suppl 2000;78: 64–5
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi A, Zafirakis P. Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked environmental study of patient preference. Curr Med Res Opinion 2004;20:1167–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bausch & Lomb. Annual report to vision care professionals. Available from http://www.optistock.com/trends_contact_ lenses_ 192001_dec.pdf [Accessed 14 Dec 2001] pp. 8–11
   Google Scholar
• Weeke ER. Epidemiology of hay fever and perennial allergic rhinitis. Monogr Allergy 1987;21:1–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brodsky M, Berger WE, Butrus S, et al. Evaluation of comfort using olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in contact lens wearers compared to placebo using the conjunctival allergen-challenge model. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:113–6
   Google Scholar
• Brodsky M. Allergic conjunctivitis and contact lenses: experience with olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% therapy. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2000;230:56–9
   Google Scholar
• Dassanayake NL, Carey TC, Owen GR. A laboratory model to determine the uptake and release of olopatadine by soft contact lenses. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000;78:16–7
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Lanier RQ. The added benefit of local patanol therapy when combined with systemic Claritin for the inhibition of ocular itching in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 1999;228:53–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abelson MB, Welch DL. An evaluation of onset and duration of action of Patanol (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1%) compared to Claritin (loratadine 10 mg) tablets in acute allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2000; 230:60–3
   Google Scholar
• Ousler GW, Wilcox KA, Gupta G, et al. An evaluation of the ocular drying effects of 2 systemic antihistamines: loratadine and cetirizine hydrochloride. Ann All Asth Immunol 2004;93: 460–464
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch D, Ousler GW, Nally LA, et al. Ocular drying associated with oral antihistamines (loratadine) in the normal population – an evaluation of exaggerated dose effect. Adv Exp Med Biol 2002;506:1051–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanier RQ, Abelson MB, Berger WE, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of combined fluticasone propionate and olopatadine versus combined fluticasone propionate and fexofenadine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis induced by conjunctival allergen challenge. Clin Ther 2002;24:1161–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spangler DL, Abelson MB, Ober A, et al. Randomized, double-masked comparison of olopatadine ophthalmic solution, mometasone furoate monohydrate nasal spray, and fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets using the conjunctival and nasal allergen challenge models. Clin Ther 2003;25:2245–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Turner D. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus placebo for controlling the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. Clin Ther 2003;25: 931–47
   Google Scholar
• Berger WE, Beck M, Kimura S, et al. Effects of adjuvant therapy with 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution on quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis using systemic or nasal therapy. Ann All Asth Immunol 2005;95 [in press]
   Google Scholar
• Ciprandi G, Turner D, Gross RD. Double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study comparing olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution with cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Curr Ther Res 2004;65: 186–99
   Google Scholar
• Bertin D, Fedrigo A, Cano-Parra J. Efficacy and safety of olopatadine (Patanol) eye drops 0.1% compared to levocabastine 0.05% in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. European Association for Vision and Eye Research meeting, In: Ophthal Res 2001;33 (suppl 1) [abstract]
   Google Scholar
• Cook EB, Stahl JL, Sedgwick JB, et al. The promotion of eosinophil degranulation and adhesion to conjunctival epithelial cells by IgE-activated conjunctival mast cells. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004;92:65–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuishi N, Matsuhisa M, Shimono T, et al. Inhibitory effect of olopatadine on antigen-induced eosinophil infiltration and the LFA-1 and Mac-1 expression in eosinophils. Jpn J Pharmacol 2002;88:46
   Google Scholar