Pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride

References

• Nathan H, Meltzer EO, Selner JC, Storms W. Prevalence of allergic rhinitis in the United States. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.99(6), S808–S814 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Austin JB. Hay fever, eczema and wheeze: a nationwide UK study: ISAAC in childhood. Arch. Dis. Child.81, 225–230 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB. Ocular allergic disease: mechanisms, disease sub-types, treatment. The Ocular Surface1(3), 38–42 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katz HR, Stevens RL, Austen KF. Heterogeneity of mammalian mast cells differentiated in vivo and in vitro. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.76, 250–259 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irani AMA, Schwartz LB. Mast cell heterogeneity. Clin. Exp. Allergy19, 143–155 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Wun PJ, Nevius JM. Mast cell stabilizers. In: Allergic diseases of the eye. Abelson MB (Ed.). WB Saunders Co, PA, USA, 232–238 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Blumenthal M, Casale T, Dockhorn R et al. Efficacy and safety of nedocromil sodium ophthalmic solution in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Am. J. Ophthalmol.113,56–63 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dechant KL, Goa KL. Levocabastine: a review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential as a topical antihistamine in allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. Drugs41, 202–224 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, George MA, Schaefer K, Smith LM. Evaluation of the new ophthalmic antihistamine 0.05% levocabastine in the clinical allergen challenge model of allergic conjunctivitis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.94, 458–464 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerqueti PM, Ricca V, Tosca MA et al. Lodoxamide treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol.105, 185–189 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secchi A, Ciprandi G, Leonardi A et al. Safety and efficacy comparison of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution compared to levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension in pediatric subjects with allergic conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand.78(230), 42–47 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alexander M. Comparative therapeutic studies with Tilavist. Allergy50(Suppl. 21), 23–29 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crampton HJ. A comparison of the relative clinical efficacy of a single dose of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution versus placebo in inhibiting the signs and symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis as induced by the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin. Ther.24(11), 1800–1808 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedlander MH, Harris J, LaVallee N, Russell H, Shilstone J. Evaluation of the onset and duration of effect of azelastine eye drops (0.05%) versus placebo in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using an allergen challenge model. Ophthalmology107(12), 2152–2157 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Gomes P, Crampton HJ, Schiffman RM, Bradford RR, Whitcup SM. Efficacy and tolerability of ophthalmic epinastine assessed using the conjunctival antigen model in patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. Clin. Ther.26(1), 35–47 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishii H, Kitamura S, Ohmoti K. Inhibitory effect of KW-4679 on allergic models in rats. Jpn J. Pharmacol.55(Suppl.), P375 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nonaka H, Ishii A, Kase H. Effect of KW-4679, a novel antiallergic agent, on histamine H1 receptor. Jpn J. Pharmacol.61(Suppl.), P87 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle 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.12(4), 389–400 (1996).
   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.12(4), 401–407 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Weimer LK, Sharif NA, Xu SX, Gamache DA, Spellman JM. Inhibition of histamine-induced human conjunctival epithelial cell responses by ocular allergy drugs. Arch Ophthalmol.117(5), 643–647 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka H, Otaki S, Ohshima E et al. Unique binding pocket for KW-4679 in the histamine H1 receptor. Eur. J. Pharmacol.345, 111–117 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Miller ST, Gamache DA, Spellman JM, Xu S, Sharif NA. Comparative effects of topical ocular anti-allergy drugs on human conjunctival mast cells. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol.79(6), 541–545 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hingorani M, Calder V, Buckley RJ, Lightman SL. The role of conjunctival epithelial cells in chronic ocular allergic disease. Exp. Eye Res.67, 491–500 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Sharif NA, Xu SX, Magnino PE, Pang I-H. Human conjunctival epithelial cells express histamine-1 receptors coupled to phosphoinositide turnover and intracellular calcium mobilization: Role in ocular allergic diseases. Exp. Eye Res.63, 169–178 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Sharif NA, Gamache DA, Miller ST, Weimer LK, Spellman JM. A current appreciation of sites for pharmacological intervention in allergic conjunctivitis: effects of new topical ocular drugs. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand.77, 33–37 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook EB, Stahl JL, Barney NP, Graziano FM. Olopatadine inhibits anti-immunoglobulin E-stimulated conjunctival mast cell upregulation of ICAM-1 expression on conjunctival epithelial cells. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol.87(5), 424–429 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook EB, Stahl JL, Barney NP, Graziano FM. Olopatadine inhibits TNF-α release from human conjunctival mast cells. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol.84(5), 504–508 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockman HL, Momsen MM, Knudtson JR, Miller ST, Graff G, Yanni JM. Interactions of olopatadine and selected antihistamines with model and natural membranes. Ocular Immunol. Inflamm. II(4), 247–268 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Chambers WA, Smith LM. Conjunctival allergen challenge: A clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis. Arch. Ophthalmol.108, 84–88 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Spitalny L. Combined analysis of 2 studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge model to evaluate olopatadine hydrochloride, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity. Am. J. Ophthalmol.125(6), 797–804 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi AA, Abelson MB. Double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study of the mast cell stabilizing effect of treatment with olopatadine in the conjunctival allergen challenge model in humans. Clin. Ther.25(10), 2539–2552 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Pratt S, Mussoline JF, Townsend D. 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.25(7), 2070–2084 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. Presented at ACAAI Annual Meeting (1997).
   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.(228), 47–52 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Greiner JV. Comparative efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Curr. Med. Res. Opin.20(12), 1953–1958 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butrus S, Greiner JV, Discepola M, Finegold I. 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.22(12), 1462–1472 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch G, Berdy SS, Brusatti RC. 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.22(7), 826–833 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.(230), 52–55 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Artal MN, Luna JD, Discepola M. A forced choice comfort study of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% versus ketotifen fumarate 0.05%. Acta Opthalmol. Scan.78, 64–65 (2000).
   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. Opin.20(7), 1167–1173 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katelaris CH, Cipriandi G, Missotten L, Turner FD, Bertin D, Bordeaux G, 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.24(10), 1561–1575 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.23(8), 1272–1280 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.24(6), 918–929 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanier BQ, Finegold I, D’Arienzo P, Granet D, Epstein AB, Ledgerwood GL. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs. epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival challenge model. Curr. Med. Res. Opin.20(8), 1227–1233 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Arienzo PA, Granet D, Epstein AB et al. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine and epinastine in allergic conjunctivitis subjects defined by sensitivity to conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC).Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.46, 2677 (2005) (E-Abstract).
   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.78, 16–17 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Brodsky M, Berger WE, Butrus S, Epstein AB, Irkec M. 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.29(2), 113–116 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brodsky M. Allergic conjunctivitis and contact lenses: experience with olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% therapy. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand.230, 56–59 (2000).
   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. (228), 53–56 (1999).
   Google 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.230, 60–63 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Gupta G, Ousler GW, Pollard SD, Abelson MB. The comparative ocular drying effects between Claritin and Zyrtec in normal adults. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.43 (2002) (E-abstract 70).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Welch D, Ousler GW, Nally LA, Abelson MB, Wilcox KA. Ocular drying associated with oral antihistamines (loratadine) in the normal population – an evaluation of exaggerated dose effect. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol.506(Pt B), 1051–1055 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torkildsen G, Abelson MB. Comparison of topical and systemic anti-allergy treatments relative to ocular dryness. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. (2006) (In Press).
   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.24(7), 1161–1174 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spangler DL, Abelson MB, Ober A, Gomes PJ. 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.25(8), 2245–2267 (2003).
   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.25(3), 931–947 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger W, Abelson MB, Gomes PJ 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. Allergy Asthma Immunol.95(4), 361–371 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.65(2), 186–199 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertin D, Fedrigo A, Cano-Parra J, for the International Patanol Clinical Group. Efficacy and safety of olopatadine (PATANOL®) eye drops 0.1% compared to levocabastine 0.05% in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Ophthal. Res. Suppl.EVER 2001-Abstracts, Abstract 3201 (2001).
   Google Scholar