olopatadine-hydrochloride and azelastine

To address the current trends of therapeutic mechanisms for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis (AC), based on topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilizers (MCS).. 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.. 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.

Topics: Administration, Ophthalmic; Anti-Allergic Agents; Benzazepines; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Cromolyn Sodium; Dibenzazepines; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Hyperemia; Imidazoles; Ketotifen; Nedocromil; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Pruritus; Pyridines; Pyrimidinones

Multiple action drugs, such as azelastine, epinastine, ketotifen and olopatadine, have recently been suggested to combine antihistaminic effect, mast cell stabilization and anti-inflammatory action. This pharmaceutical class is, therefore, rapidly becoming the first choice for prevention and treatment for allergic conjunctivitis.. Increasing in-vitro studies have been performed to investigate the mast-cell-stabilizing effect of multiple action drugs. Most of the study results agree that these drugs are able to inhibit histamine and several neoformed mediators, including cytokines and arachidonic acid-derived products, from mast cells. However, the mechanisms of action have not yet fully been elucidated. Most of the results from clinical trials as well as the in-vivo experimental studies, including the conjunctival provocation model, support the evidence of a stabilizing effect of these drugs.. Evidence of a different inhibitory effect of multiple action compounds on the pro-inflammatory mediators released from the mast cells suggests the possibility to target different phases of the allergic reaction, leading to a potential improvement in the management of allergic patients.

Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Arachidonic Acid; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Cytokines; Dibenzazepines; Dibenzoxepins; Histamine; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Imidazoles; Immunity, Innate; Ketotifen; Mast Cells; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines

To review the literature supporting current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis.. Published articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature.. Clinical trials focusing on the efficacy, safety, and recommended uses of the currently approved nasal antihistamines in the United States: azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%.. Azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%, have rapid onsets of action, are well tolerated, and have clinical efficacy for treating allergic rhinitis that is equal or superior to oral second-generation antihistamines. Both also have a clinically significant effect on nasal congestion. Azelastine is also approved for nonallergic rhinitis. Although older data suggest that intranasal steroids have greater clinical efficacy than nasal antihistamines, more recent comparisons in patients with mild to moderate disease have shown equal or noninferior efficacy. In addition, in contrast to oral antihistamines or leukotriene antagonists, the combination of a nasal antihistamine and intranasal steroid may provide additive benefits for treating patients with more severe disease.. The data support current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Future studies should address possible as needed use, the use of premixed antihistamine-steroid combinations, and the treatment of mixed rhinitis.

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Anti-Allergic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dibenzoxepins; Humans; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome

Allergic eye disease is a term that refers to a number of disease processes that affect about one-fifth of the world's population. Although the more advanced forms of the disease can be sight threatening, the most disabling effects are due to the clinical manifestations, and hence quality of life, with some patients having seasonal exacerbations of their symptoms, whereas others have symptoms that are present throughout the year. Recent increased understanding of the cellular and mediator mechanisms that are involved in the various disease manifestations has greatly facilitated the development of more effective treatment options. Newer topical medications are being used that have multiple actions, such as an antihistaminic effect coupled with mast-cell stabilisation, and which require reduced daily dosing due to their longer duration of action. With greater research into newer therapies and more effective modes of delivery, improved healthcare outcomes with a lower economic burden will be achieved for patients with allergic eye disease.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Allergic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Cost of Illness; Dibenzoxepins; Drug Administration Schedule; Health Care Costs; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Mast Cells; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus; Vision Disorders

Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% and olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% are topical ocular allergy treatments that have demonstrated multiple pharmacologic actions, including antihistamine, mast cell stabilization, and inhibition of proinflammatory mediators. In this article, the mechanisms of action, efficacy, and tolerability of these two agents on ocular signs and symptoms are examined. By studying the various target sites of drug action, an enhanced clinical response algorithm of these topical ocular agents can be implemented to maximize the response for patients suffering from ocular allergy.

Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Allergic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Clinical Trials as Topic; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Dibenzoxepins; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Mast Cells; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an allergen-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs during periods of high pollen count. Current treatments for SAR include allergen avoidance, systemic antihistamines, and steroidal and nonsteroidal intranasal sprays. Olopatadine is a selective antihistamine and an inhibitor of proinflammatory mediators from human mast cells. An intranasal formulation of olopatadine has been developed for the treatment of SAR.. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% (AZE) and an inactive vehicle in the treatment of SAR.. This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were aged > or =12 years and had a history of SAR and verified allergy to a prevalent local allergen. After a run-in period during which inactive vehicle was administered, patients were randomly assigned to OLO, AZE (active control), or inactive vehicle (identical to OLO; placebo control), 2 sprays in each nostril BID for 16 days. The timing of enrollment was correlated with the start of the allergy season at each site. Symptoms were recorded twice daily in an electronic diary. Efficacy assessments included changes in mean daily reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSS). Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs) and nasal, physical, and cardiovascular parameters.. A total of 544 patients were randomized. The mean age was 36 years (range, 12-77 years); men and boys represented 32.2% of the population; and the patients were predominantly white (75.4%). The mean reductions from baseline in reflective TNSS were 26.8%, 29.9%, and 18.4% with OLO, AZE, and inactive vehicle, respectively (P = 0.003 OLO vs inactive vehicle; 95% CI, -2.5% to 8.7% OLO vs AZE [non-inferiority]). The most commonly reported treatment-related AE in the OLO and AZE groups was bitter taste (12.2% [22/180] and 19.7% [37/188], respectively). The prevalence and intensity of bitter taste were significantly lower with OLO than with AZE (P = 0.05 and P = 0.005, respectively). In the group that received inactive vehicle, the prevalence of bitter taste was 1.7% (3/176). The prevalences of other treatment-related AEs, including epistaxis and nasal discomfort, were < or =3.7% in each group and did not differ significantly between groups.. In this small study in patients aged > or =12 years with SAR, the percentage reduction from baseline in TNSS was significantly greater with OLO (2 sprays in each nostril BID) compared with vehicle and not significantly different from that with AZE. OLO and AZE were similarly well tolerated, with the exception of prevalence and intensity of bitter taste, which were significantly lower with OLO.

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Allergic Agents; Child; Dibenzoxepins; Double-Blind Method; Epistaxis; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Taste; United States; Young Adult

Olopatadine, an antihistamine used in allergic conjunctivitis, is under development as a nasal preparation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.. To evaluate the efficacy of olopatadine in suppressing symptoms and biomarkers of the immediate reaction induced by nasal allergen provocation and to compare olopatadine with azelastine in the same model.. The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University institutional review board, and all subjects gave written consent. We studied 20 asymptomatic subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study had 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phases that evaluated 2 concentrations of olopatadine, 0.1% and 0.2%. In a third exploratory phase, olopatadine, 0.1%, was compared with topical azelastine, 0.1%, in a patient-masked design. Efficacy variables were the allergen-induced sneezes, other clinical symptoms, and the levels of histamine, tryptase, albumin, lysozyme, and cysteinyl-leukotrienes (third study only) in nasal lavage fluids.. Both concentrations of olopatadine produced significant inhibition of all nasal symptoms, compared with placebo. Olopatadine, 0.1%, inhibited lysozyme levels, but olopatadine, 0.2%, inhibited histamine, albumin, and lysozyme. The effects of olopatadine, 0.1%, were comparable to those of azelastine, 0.1%.. Olopatadine, at 0.1% and 0.2% concentrations, was effective in suppressing allergen-induced nasal symptoms. At 0.2%, olopatadine provided evidence suggestive of inhibition of mast cell degranulation.

Topics: Adult; Allergens; Anti-Allergic Agents; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Cross-Over Studies; Dibenzoxepins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nasal Provocation Tests; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal

Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and azelastine hydrochlofide 0.05% ophthalmic solution are 2 topical antiallergic agents indicated for the treatment of itching of the eye associated with allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine has recently received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for an expanded indication for the treatment of signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, including itching, tearing, eyelid swelling, redness, and chemosis.. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride versus azelastine hydrochloride and placebo (artificial tears) in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.. This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally controlled, multicenter, allergen-challenge study. Itching was chosen as the primary efficacy variable since it is the only FDA-approved indication these 2 agents have in common. Subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis who responded to the CAC at screening visits 1 and 2 were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: olopatadine in 1 eye and azelastine in the other eye; olopatadine in 1 eye and placebo in the other eye; or azelastine in 1 eye and placebo in the other eye. At the assessment visit (visit 3), subjects received masked study medication according to the randomization scheme. After 5 minutes, subjects were bilaterally challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at visits 1 and 2. Immediately after challenge, subjects gave itching assessments (scale, 0 = no itching to 4 = severe itching) every 30 seconds for a total period of 20 minutes. Mean itching scores for all eyes were compared by treatment. Mean itching scores at each time point were compared between treatments using 2 sample t tests.. Of the 180 subjects screened, 111 responded to the CAC at visits 1 and 2 and completed the study; 65% (72/111) of patients were female, 87% (97/111) were white, and 49% (54/111) had brown irides. The mean age was approximately 40 years. Seventy-three eyes were treated with olopatadine, 75 with azelastine, and 74 with placebo. A single dose of 1 of the 3 study medications per eye was well tolerated by all subjects. Both treatments were significantly more effective than placebo at reducing itching postchallenge. Olopatadine was significantly more effective than azelastine in reducing itching at 3.5 minutes through 20 minutes postchallenge (average mean unit difference of -0.31; P < 0.05) in the CAC model.. In this population, olopatadine was significantly more effective than azelastine in the management of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the CAC model.

Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Dibenzoxepins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phthalazines; Prospective Studies

The aim of this study was to investigate the cytotoxic effect of topical ocular allergic agents with H1-receptor antagonism and inhibition of histamine release from mast cells on the cultured conjunctival cells of rabbit in vitro.. Cell damage by the topical ocular antiallergic agents (azelastine hydrochloride, ketotifen fumarate, and olopatadine hydrochloride) was determined by using the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) leakage assay with the rate of dilution of 10, 20, and 30%, respectively, for a period of 0 and 30 min and 4, 12, and 24 h, and compared with the balanced salt solution-treated group. The osmolarity, pH, composition of electrolytes, preservatives, and morphologic findings of all the antiallergic agents were also evaluated.. The LDH titers increased after all the antiallergic agents were exposed up to 4 h, maintained its level for 12 h, and then decreased until 24 h. There was no statistical significance among the three agents. The greater titer of LDH, the more conjunctival cells became swollen or round. Azelastine and ketotifen showed greater LDH titer, edema, and cytoplasmic and nuclear degenerations of the conjunctival cells than that of olopatadine. The levels of Na(+), Cl(-), and pH were significantly lower with azelastine and ketotifen, compared with olopatadine, and all antiallergic agents contained the same concentration of benzalconium chloride.. When antiallergic agents are used to treat allergic conjunctivitis other than olopatadine, a particularly toxic effect on conjunctival cells associated with azelastine and ketotifen, rather than olopatadine, should be considered clinically.

Topics: Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Cells, Cultured; Conjunctiva; Dibenzoxepins; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Ketotifen; L-Lactate Dehydrogenase; Microscopy, Electron; Microscopy, Phase-Contrast; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Rabbits

In order to compare the relative efficacy of topical antihistamines with balanced saline solution (BSS) and benzalkonium chloride (BC) in the early phase of allergic conjunctivitis in an animal model of ocular anaphylaxis, 96 male guinea pigs were sensitized with intraperitoneal egg albumin (EA) and aluminum hydroxide. Seventy-six animals were used for determination of Evans blue (EB) extravasation and 20 for clinical evaluation of the allergic response (redness, edema, discharge and itch-scratch response). Eighteen days after sensitization the animals were topically challenged by conjunctival instillation of EA and treated 15 min before and 15 min after challenge with commercially available drugs (ketotifen, ketotifen single dose units [SDU], olopatadine, azelastine, spaglumic acid and emedastine) and controls (BSS and BC). The animals used for EB quantification were anesthetized and received an intravenous injection of EB simultaneously to the topical challenge. The ocular extravasation of the colorant was determined by 620 nm absorbance spectrophotometry. The animals used for clinical evaluation were observed for clinical signs of the allergic reaction. EB ocular extravasation was significantly lower in the eyes treated by spaglumic acid and emedastine. The clinical scoring was consistent with EB extravasation, though the difference was not statistically significant. Spaglumic acid and emedastine seem to be the most useful drugs to reduce EB extravasation and allergic signs in an animal model of early phase allergic conjunctivitis.

Topics: Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Benzimidazoles; Coloring Agents; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Dibenzoxepins; Dipeptides; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Evans Blue; Guinea Pigs; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Ketotifen; Male; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phthalazines; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome

The topical application of 0.1% olopatadine has been shown to provide significant attenuation of histamine-induced conjunctival vascular permeability (CVP) within 5 min and for as long as 24 h following a topical administration. The duration of the action of olopatadine was compared to that of epinastine, azelastine, and ketotifen. Male Hartley outbred guinea pigs (weighing 250-300 g) were administered a drug or vehicle as single O.D. topical drops, at times ranging from 4 to 24 h prior to histamine challenge. One (1) h prior to histamine challenge, the animals were administered 1 mL of Evans blue dye (1 mg/mL) through the marginal ear vein. Histamine (300 ng) was administered by a subconjunctival injection, and the guinea pigs were sacrificed 30 min later. CVP was assessed as the area and color intensity stained with Evans blue dye. The potencies of each drug were determined by calculating a 50% effective dose (ED(50)) for the inhibition of vascular leakage, compared to vehicle treatment, at each time point. Olopatadine was the only compound tested that was significantly effective 16 h following a single topical application. The ED(50) for olopatadine at 16 h was 0.031%. Epinastine, azelastine, and ketotifen were only significantly effective for up to 4 h. Olopatadine exhibited the longest duration of action for inhibition of histamine-induced vascular permeability in guinea pigs of any topical antiallergic drug tested. Concentrations of olopatadine, which provided a greater than 50% inhibition of the histamine-induced vascular response, were consistently less than 0.1% over a 16-h pretreatment interval.

Topics: Administration, Topical; Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Capillary Permeability; Conjunctiva; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dibenzazepines; Dibenzoxepins; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Guinea Pigs; Histamine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Imidazoles; Ketotifen; Male; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phthalazines

Mast cells play an important role in allergic inflammation by releasing vasoactive molecules, proteases and cytokines. Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and its structural analogue urocortin (Ucn) were shown to trigger skin mast cell activation and vascular permeability. We investigated the effect of acute stress on rat skin vascular permeability and CRH secretion, as well as the effect of intradermal CRH, and that of two histamine-1 receptor antagonists, azelastine and olopatadine, on vascular permeability.. Rats were stressed by restraint and vascular permeability was assessed by extravasation of (99)Tc-gluceptate, while mast cell activation was determined by skin rat mast cell protease-1 (RMCP-1) content. Skin CRH content was evaluated by ELISA. The effect of intradermal injection of CRH and Ucn, as well as that of two histamine-1 receptor antagonists, azelastine and olopatadine, was assessed by Evan's blue extravasation. Purified rat peritoneal mast cells (RPMCs) were also pretreated with azelastine (24 microM) or olopatadine (133 microM) for 5 min before challenge with compound 48/80 (0.5 microg/ml) for 30 min. Histamine secretion was measured fluorometrically. Intracellular Ca(2+) ions were evaluated in RPMCs loaded with calcium crimson and stimulated with compound 48/80.. Acute stress increased skin vascular permeability and CRH content, while it decreased RMCP-1. Intradermal injection of CRH or Ucn induced substantial Evan's blue extravasation that was inhibited by pretreatment with azelastine (24 microM) and olopatadine (133 microM). Both antihistamines also inhibited histamine release and intracellular increase of Ca(2+) ions from RPMCs stimulated by compound 48/80.. These results indicate that acute stress increases skin CRH that can trigger mast cell-dependent vascular permeability, effects inhibited by certain histamine-1 receptor antagonists, possibly acting to reduce intracellular Ca(2+) ion levels.

Topics: Acute Disease; Animals; Calcium; Capillary Permeability; Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone; Dibenzoxepins; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine Release; Injections, Intradermal; Male; Mast Cells; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Restraint, Physical; Skin; Stress, Physiological

Recent decades have been marked by an increasing number of patients suffering from ocular allergic-like symptoms without being associated with an increase in IgE levels. These symptoms include heaviness of the lid, foreign body sensation, burning, stinging and photophobia. Both epidemiological studies and controlled human exposure clinical studies have shown cause-effect relationships between allergic-like symptoms and environmental factors such as outdoor air pollutants or poor indoor air quality. An ocular surface subclinical inflammation is thought to be responsible for pseudoallergic, pollution-related conjunctivitis. The complement system is considered as one of the major effector mechanisms involved in initiation of the subclinical inflammation that leads to IgE-independent eye irritation.. To study the capability of nine antiallergic eyedrops commonly used in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis to inhibit complement activation induced in vitro by pollutants.. Normal human serum obtained from healthy individuals was used as a source of complement. Activation of complement was assessed using the complement hemolytic 50% (CH50) assay, in the absence or the presence of antiallergic eyedrops and in the absence or the presence of various stimuli, including sand, common house dust, eye mascara, and Dactylis glomerata pollen extract. Zymosan was used as a standardized complement activator. The following eyedrops were studied: Naabak (4.9% N-acetyl aspartic acid-glutamic acid, NAAGA, sodium salt), Almide (lodoxamide 0.1%), Levophta (0.05% levocabastine), Emadine (0.05% emedastine), Tilavist (2% nedocromil), Allergodil (0.05% azelastine), Patanol (olopatadine), and Zaditen (0.025% ketotifen). Effects of preservative-free lodoxamide and ketotifen were also assessed and compared to those of the preserved formulations. A solution of 0.01% benzalkonium chloride (BAC), the most widely used preservative in topical eyedrops, was also tested.. Zymosan-induced activation of complement (30+/-6%) was significantly lowered by preincubation of serum with unpreserved NAAGA (16.6+/-4%, p=0.0026) or benzalkonium-preserved nedocromil (20+/-2%, p=0.022). Preserved levocabastine, emedastine, olopatadine and ketotifen did not interfere with zymosan-induced complement activation, whereas preserved azelastine, lodoxamide and benzalkonium chloride significantly aggravated complement activation induced by zymosan. Similar results were obtained when complement activation was triggered by sand, common house dust, mascara, or by an allergenic extract of Dactylis glomerata pollen. In the absence of complement activator, none of the antiallergic eyedrops induced a significant change in CH50 titer, indicating that the deleterious pro-inflammatory effect of preserved azelastine and lodoxamide may occur only once complement activation has been initiated, i.e., on an inflamed ocular surface.. Among the antiallergic eyedrops tested in this study, only Naabak and Tilavist were found to significantly inhibit complement activation triggered by particulate matters or pollen allergenic extract. Such an anticomplement activity confers these two molecules a potential in the therapeutic management of pollution-related pseudoallergic conjunctivitis.

Topics: Air Pollutants; Anti-Allergic Agents; Benzalkonium Compounds; Benzimidazoles; Complement Activation; Conjunctivitis; Cosmetics; Dibenzoxepins; Dipeptides; Drug Evaluation; Dust; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Ketotifen; Nedocromil; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Ophthalmic Solutions; Oxamic Acid; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Pollen; Silicon Dioxide; Zymosan

Mast cells are involved in early- and late-phase reactions by releasing vasoactive molecules, proteases, and cytokines. Certain histamine-1 receptor antagonists and other antiallergic drugs seem to inhibit the release of mediators from rat and human mast cells.. Azelastine and olopatadine are antiallergic agents present in the ophthalmic solutions azelastine hydrochloride (Optivar, Asta Medica/Muro Pharmaceuticals, Tewksbury, MA), and olopatadine hydrochloride (Patanol, Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX), respectively. We investigated the effect of these drugs on interleukin-6 (IL-6), tryptase, and histamine release from cultured human mast cells (CHMCs).. CHMCs were grown from human umbilical cord blood-derived CD34+ cells in the presence of stem cell factor and IL-6 for 14 to 16 weeks. Sensitized CHMCs were pretreated with various concentrations of azelastine or olopatadine for 5 minutes. CHMCs were then challenged with anti-immunoglobulin E, and the released mediators were quantitated.. The greatest inhibition of mediator release was seen with 24 microM azelastine; this level of inhibition was matched with the use of 133 microM olopatadine. At this concentration, these drugs inhibited IL-6 release by 83% and 74%, tryptase release by 55% and 79%, and histamine release by 41% and 45%, respectively. Activated CHMCs were characterized by numerous filopodia that were inhibited by both drugs as shown by electron microscopy.. These results indicate that azelastine and olopatadine can inhibit CHMCs activation and release of IL-6, tryptase, and histamine. On an equimolar basis, azelastine was a more potent inhibitor than olopatadine.

Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Cells, Cultured; Dibenzoxepins; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Fetal Blood; Histamine Release; Humans; Interleukin-6; Lymphocyte Activation; Mast Cells; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Serine Endopeptidases; Tryptases

The inhibitory effect of olopatadine, a new antiallergic drug, on antigen-induced eosinophil infiltration and its mechanisms were examined using the local sensitized rat allergic rhinitis model and isolated IL-5-stimulated rat peritoneal eosinophils. Olopatadine dose-dependently inhibited antigen-induced eosinophil infiltration in the nasal mucosa. Olopatadine dose-dependently repressed the IL-5-induced expressions of CD11a/CD18 (LFA-1) and CD11b/CD18 (Mac-1) on rat peritoneal eosinophils. However, olopatadine had no effect on IL-5-induced CD49d/CD29 (VLA-4) expression. These results suggest that olopatadine may inhibit antigen-induced eosinophil infiltration through repression of LFA-1 and Mac-1 expression.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Cell Movement; Dibenzoxepins; Eosinophils; Histamine H1 Antagonists; In Vitro Techniques; Integrin alpha4beta1; Lymphocyte Function-Associated Antigen-1; Macrophage-1 Antigen; Male; Nasal Mucosa; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Phthalazines; Rats; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial