piperidines 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

Because of its burden on patient's lives and its impact on asthma, allergic rhinitis must be treated properly with more effective and safer treatments. According to guidelines by Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), the classification, pathogenesis, and treatment of allergic rhinitis are well defined. Currently, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids are considered the cornerstone of first-line therapy. However, new formulations of available drugs (e.g., loratadine and rupatadine oral solution, ebastine fast-dissolving tablets, and the combination of intranasal fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride), recently discovered molecules (e.g., ciclesonide, bilastine, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors), immunologic targets (e.g., omalizumab), and unconventional treatments (e.g., homeopathic treatments) are currently under investigation and represent a new frontier in modern medicine and in allergic rhinitis management. The aim of this review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment, paying particular attention to clinical trials published within the past 20 months that assessed the efficacy and safety of new formulations of available drugs or new molecules.

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Androstadienes; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Benzimidazoles; Butyrophenones; Cyproheptadine; Fluticasone; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Omalizumab; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Pregnenediones; Rhinitis, Allergic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial

We performed a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials to determine whether intranasal corticosteroids offered an advantage over topical antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.. We searched for studies using MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahi, and Cochrane databases, pharmaceutical companies, and references of included trials.. Criteria for considering trials included: 1) published randomized controlled trials; 2) single- or double-blind studies; and 3) presence of one of the following clinical outcomes: nasal symptoms, eye symptoms, global symptoms evaluation of quality of life and side effects.. Nine studies including 648 subjects (mean age 30.4 years, range 13 to 73) with allergic rhinitis were selected. Intranasal corticosteroids produced significantly greater reduction of total nasal symptoms (standardized mean difference -0.36, 95% confidence interval -0.57 to -0.14), sneezing (-0.41, -0.57 to -0.24), rhinorrhea (-0.47, -0.64 to -0.29), itching (-0.38, -0.56 to -0.19), and nasal blockage (-0.86, -1.07 to -0.64) than did topical antihistamines. There was no significant difference between treatments for ocular symptoms (-0.07, -0.27 to 0.12). The effects on sneezing, rhinorrhea, itching, and ocular symptoms were significantly heterogeneous between studies. Other outcomes (total nasal symptom score and nasal blockage) were homogeneous between studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis suggested that most of the heterogeneity of outcomes could be explained on the basis of the methodologic quality of studies.. Intranasal corticosteroids produced greater relief of nasal symptoms than did topical antihistamines (topical H1 receptor antagonists). However, there was no difference in the relief of the ocular symptoms.

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Topical; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Androstadienes; Anti-Allergic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Beclomethasone; Budesonide; Fluocinolone Acetonide; Fluticasone; Glucocorticoids; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Middle Aged; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome

The article presents two topical antihistaminics: levocabastine and azelastine. Most attention is paid to discussing the pharmacokinetics and antihistamine, antiallergic and antiinflammatory activities of these drugs. Their clinical usefulness in allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis is also presented. Finally the authors describe the adverse reaction observed after administrating of topical antihistaminics.

Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Allergic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Mucosa; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial

To compare the onset of action, efficacy, and safety of azelastine and levocabastine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.. In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial, 244 patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive either azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray (ANS) 0.1% or levocabastine hydrochloride nasal spray (LNS) 0.05% for 14 consecutive days. A visual analog scale was used to record total nasal symptom score (TNSS) changes. Indexes for further assessment included onset of action, total effective rate, and evaluation of therapeutic effect.. Statistically significant changes from baseline in TNSS were seen in both the LNS group and the ANS group. No significant differences were seen between the two groups in terms of evaluation of therapeutic effect, total effective rate, and onset of action, except for a higher symptom relief rate in the LNS group than in the ANS group within 30 min of administering the first dose. Adverse reactions were mild to moderate, with an incidence of 0.9% for LNS and 2.5% for ANS.. Both ANS and LNS were effective and safe in the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent allergic rhinitis. Moreover, LNS reached a higher symptom relief rate within 30 min of administering the first dose.

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nasal Sprays; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Retrospective Studies; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Azelastine is a selective H(1)-receptor antagonist that inhibits histamine release and interferes with activation of several other mediators of allergic inflammation. Together with demonstrated efficacy in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, azelastine indicated a therapeutic potential for perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC). The present study aimed to evaluate azelastine eye drops in patients with PAC compared to placebo.. A multinational trial in 22 centres randomised 139 patients to twice-daily treatment for 6 weeks with masked 0.05% azelastine eye drops, matching masked placebo, or open-label levocabastine. Randomisation required a sum itching and conjunctival redness score of at least 3 (0-6 scale) after 1 week of placebo. The change in sum score was evaluated during treatment.. Azelastine significantly improved itching and conjunctival redness compared to placebo (p < 0.001) with global tolerability that was not substantially different from placebo. On day 7, the mean symptoms sum score improved with azelastine by 1.9 +/- 1.1 and with levocabastine by 1.5 +/- 1.2 compared to placebo (0.6 +/- 1.1) from baseline values of 3.7-3.8. The sum scores continued to improve up to day 42. Daily patient logs confirmed the clinically assessed scores. Most frequent adverse events following azelastine were bitter taste and application site reaction.. Topical azelastine progressively improved itching and conjunctival redness in PAC patients compared to placebo and was at least as effective as levocabastine. Rapid relief is consistent with H(1)-receptor antagonist action, while continued improvement up to 6 weeks may be consistent with mechanisms involving other mediators of allergic inflammation.

Topics: Administration, Topical; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Analysis of Variance; Anti-Allergic Agents; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial

The aim of the present investigation was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) (1.12 mg/day) and levocabastine (CAS 79547-78-7) (0.4 mg/day) nasal spray administered twice daily to patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. A total of 180 patients participated in a 4-week, double-blind, parallel group (n = 90 each) study. Symptom severity of nasal, ocular and other symptoms were recorded, out of which a total symptom score (TSS) was calculated. Physicians assessed symptoms at baseline and at days 7, 14, and 28, patients and physicians evaluated the efficacy and tolerability. After 4 weeks of treatment with azelastine the mean overall TSS was reduced from a baseline score of 18.7 to 4.2, after levocabastine from 17.8 to 5.9. Patients morning scores for treatment days 1 to 28 gave a mean total score of 212.4 for the azelastine group and 230.6 for the levocabastine group; the equivalent evening scores yielded a mean total score of 115.5 and 175.6 respectively. Global efficacy was judged by physicians as either 'very good' or 'good' for 90% of azelastine patients and for 74% of the levocabastine group; 92% of azelastine patients and 76% of levocabastine patients judged treatment to be either 'very good' or 'good'. No serious adverse events were reported, all adverse events were related to nasal symptoms. Both azelastine and levocabastine administered twice daily as a nasal spray provide effective and well tolerated symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Azelastine, however, was statistically superior in efficacy as well as in safety (PWei-Lachin < 0.0001, combined results).

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Aerosols; Aged; Anti-Allergic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Endpoint Determination; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Risk Assessment

A randomised, multicentre parallel group study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of 0.05% azelastine eye drops (101 patients) in an open manner with 0.05% levocabastine eye drops (103 patients) and in a double-blind manner with placebo (103 patients) during a 14-day treatment period involving patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. The three main eye symptoms, scored on a four-point scale, were itching, lacrimation and conjunctival redness; the primary efficacy variable was the responder rate on day 3. Responders were patients whose sum score of the three main eye symptoms decreased by at least three points from a baseline score of at least six points. In addition to these main symptoms, five other symptoms were recorded on days 0, 3, 7 and 14, and patients kept daily diaries of the three main eye symptoms and swollen eyelids. The responder rate after 3 days of treatment was 69% in patients treated with azelastine, 59% in patients treated with levocabastine and 51% in the placebo group. Only the difference in responder rates between azelastine and placebo eye drops was statistically significant (p = 0.02). The improvements in other ocular symptoms and entries in the patients' diaries closely reflected the changes reported by the investigators. No serious adverse events occurred throughout the study. Nine patients (three in the azelastine, five in the levocabastine and one in the placebo group) terminated the study prematurely due to poor tolerability. Adverse drug reactions, mainly a mild, transient irritation and a bitter or unpleasant taste, were reported in 37% of patients receiving azelastine eye drops, 31% of patients receiving levocabastine and 9% of placebo patients. Overall tolerability was assessed as very good or good in 86% of azelastine- and levocabastine-treated patients, and in 95% of the patients receiving placebo. The results of this study indicate that azelastine possesses a tolerability profile at least comparable to that of levocabastine eye drops, but additionally appears to have a slightly quicker onset of effect, and confirm the therapeutic potential of azelastine eye drops in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Analysis of Variance; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Consumer Product Safety; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Medical Records; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Time Factors

In a randomised, multicentre study, the effect of azelastine eye drops (n = 51 patients) was compared in a double-blind manner with placebo eye drops (n = 30 patients) and in an open manner with levocabastine eye drops (n = 32 patients) during a 14-day treatment period involving 113 children (aged 4 to 12 years) suffering from seasonal allergic conjunctivitis/rhinoconjunctivitis. The primary variable was the response rate defined as the number of patients showing an improvement after three days of treatment of at least three score points, from a minimum baseline score of six, in the main ocular symptoms of itching, conjunctival redness and lacrimation (each assessed on a four-point scale). Patients discontinuing due to inefficacy were regarded as non-responders. The mean response rate in the azelastine eye drops group (74%) was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than that in the placebo group (39%) and comparable with that in the levocabastine group. The response rates assessed by the patients in their diaries were very similar. Significant differences (p < 0.01) for azelastine compared with placebo were observed on days 3 and 14 in the mean sum scores for the three main symptoms and for a total of eight eye symptoms. The overall assessment of efficacy confirmed the superiority of both active treatments compared with placebo. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 23% of placebo-, 35% of azelastine- and 38% of levocabastine-treated patients. These were mainly local irritant effects. Overall tolerability was assessed as very good or good in 80%, 84% and 91% of placebo-, azelastine- and levocabastine-treated patients, respectively. Azelastine eye drops are effective and well-tolerated in children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Severity of Illness Index

The efficacy and safety of the nasally administered histamine H1 receptor blocking drug azelastine was investigated in a randomized comparative trial with ebastine. Patients were treated for 14 days and efficacy was assessed by the physician using a rating scale measuring 10 nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal rhinitis (0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). Tolerability was measured on the basis of reported adverse events. Data from a total of 59 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Both treatment groups had dramatic reductions in the physician's total symptom score following treatment. Mean scores in the azelastine group decreased from 12.4 pretreatment to 5.6, while the mean ebastine scores decreased from 13.6 to 6.6. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.86). Changes in individual rhinitis symptoms showed no differences between the two groups. The majority of patients in both treatment groups reported an initial relief of symptoms within 1 h of dosing. For seven patients treated with azelastine, the initial effect was already seen after 10 min (ebastine: two patients). Eight adverse events were reported in each treatment group; all were mild except one report of sedation in an ebastine patient, which was of moderate severity. Three patients reported somnolence during treatment with ebastine. A bitter taste was mentioned by four patients in the azelastine group, but neither somnolence nor sedation was reported with azelastine. In conclusion, the results of the study suggest that both azelastine and ebastine are effective treatments of the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Both drugs were well tolerated.

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Butyrophenones; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome

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

A normal ciliary beat frequency of ciliated cells is necessary for the mucociliary clearance of the nose and paranasal sinuses. An in vitro investigation was performed to evaluate the influence of topical corticosteroids and antihistamines on the ciliary beat frequency of human nasal mucosa. The nasal sprays examined contained the corticosteroids budesonide or fluticasone propionate and the topical antihistamines azelastine or levocabastine. All tests were performed on cell cultures of human nasal mucosa during constant conditions. Three of the four nasal sprays tested contained benzalkonium chloride as preservative. An irreversible cessation of ciliary movement was observed in all cells exposed to nasal sprays containing benzalkonium chloride in a 50 per cent solution. The nasal spray containing budesonide was benzalkonium chloride-free and caused minor but fully reversible decreases in ciliary beat frequency after 20 min. As benzalkonium chloride can cause complete standstill of ciliary beat frequency in vitro in human nasal mucosa, we recommend that this preservative should not be used anymore in topical nasal medications.

Topics: Administration, Topical; Androstadienes; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Benzalkonium Compounds; Budesonide; Fluticasone; Glucocorticoids; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Mucociliary Clearance; Nasal Mucosa; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Preservatives, Pharmaceutical

Topics: Animals; Butyrophenones; Cell Membrane; Chromones; Cyproheptadine; Guinea Pigs; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Ileum; Leukotriene Antagonists; Leukotriene D4; Lung; Membrane Proteins; Muscle Contraction; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Receptors, Leukotriene