olopatadine-hydrochloride and Urticaria

olopatadine-hydrochloride has been researched along with Urticaria* in 10 studies

Reviews

3 review(s) available for olopatadine-hydrochloride and Urticaria

ArticleYear
Properties of olopatadine hydrochloride, a new antiallergic/antihistaminic drug.
    Arzneimittel-Forschung, 2004, Volume: 54, Issue:12

    Olopatadine hydrochloride (CAS 140462-76-6, KW-4679, AL-4943A; hereinafter referred to as olopatadine) is a novel antiallergic drug that is a selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist possessing inhibitory effects on the release of inflammatory lipid mediators such as leukotriene and thromboxane from human polymorphonuclear leukocytes and eosinophils. Olopatadine also inhibits the tachykininergic contractions in guinea pig bronchi by prejunctional inhibition of peripheral sensory nerves. Oral administration of olopatadine at doses of 0.03 mg/kg or higher reduces the symptoms of experimental allergic cutaneous responses and rhinoconjunctivitis in sensitized animals. Preclinical and clinical evaluations have demonstrated that olopatadine is a safe drug. After oral administration to healthy volunteers, olopatadine was rapidly and extensively absorbed. Unlike most other antiallergic drugs which are eliminated via hepatic metabolism, olopatadine is mainly excreted into urine. Olopatadine did not affect cytochrome P450 activities in human liver microsomes and consequently drug-drug metabolic interactions are unlikely. In double-masked clinical trials, olopatadine was shown to be effective at alleviating symptoms of allergic diseases. The drug (Allelock) was approved in Japan for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, chronic urticaria, eczema dermatitis, prurigo, cutaneous pruritus, psoriasis vulgaris and erythema exsudativum multiforme in December, 2000. An ophthalmic solution of olopatadine is also useful for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: this formulation (Patanol) was approved in the USA and the European Union for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis in 1996 and 2002, respectively.

    Topics: Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Dibenzoxepins; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Urticaria

2004
Pharmacological, pharmacokinetic and clinical properties of olopatadine hydrochloride, a new antiallergic drug.
    Japanese journal of pharmacology, 2002, Volume: 88, Issue:4

    Olopatadine hydrochloride (olopatadine, 11-[(Z)-3-(dimethylamino)propylidene]-6,11-dihydrodibenz[b,e]oxepin-2-acetic acid monohydrochloride) is a novel antiallergic/histamine H1-receptor antagonistic drug that was synthesized and evaluated in our laboratories. Oral administration of olopatadine at doses of 0.03 mg/kg or higher inhibited the symptoms of experimental allergic skin responses, rhinoconjunctivitis and bronchial asthma in sensitized guinea pigs and rats. Olopatadine is a selective histamine H1-receptor antagonist possessing inhibitory effects on the release of inflammatory lipid mediators such as leukotriene and thromboxane from human polymorphonuclear leukocytes and eosinophils. Olopatadine also inhibited the tachykininergic contraction in the guinea pig bronchi by prejunctional inhibition of peripheral sensory nerves. Olopatadine exerted no significant effects on action potential duration in isolated guinea pig ventricular myocytes, myocardium and human ether-a-go-go-related gene channel. Olopatadine was highly and rapidly absorbed in healthy human volunteers. The urinary excretion of olopatadine accounted for not less than 58% and the contribution of metabolism was considerably low in the clearance of olopatadine in humans. Olopatadine is one of the few renal clearance drugs in antiallergic drugs. Olopatadine was shown to be useful for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria in double-blind clinical trials. Olopatadine was approved in Japan for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, chronic urticaria, eczema dermatitis, prurigo, pruritus cutaneous, psoriasis vulgaris and erythema exsudativum multiforme in December, 2000. Ophthalmic solution of olopatadine was also approved in the United States for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in December, 1996 (Appendix: also in the European Union, it was approved in February 2002).

    Topics: Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Asthma; Clinical Trials as Topic; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Dibenzoxepins; Drug Administration Routes; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Inflammation Mediators; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Ophthalmic Solutions; Pruritus; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Urticaria

2002
[Pharmacological, pharmacokinetic and clinical properties of olopatadine hydrochloride' (olopatadine), an antiallergic drug].
    Nihon yakurigaku zasshi. Folia pharmacologica Japonica, 2001, Volume: 118, Issue:1

    Olopatadine is a selective histamine H1-receptor antagonist possessing inhibitory effects on the release of inflammatory lipid mediators such as leukotriene and thromboxane from human polymorphonuclear leukocytes and eosinophils. Olopatadine also inhibited the tachykininergic contraction in the guinea pig bronchi by prejunctional inhibition of peripheral sensory nerves. Oral administration of olopatadine inhibited passive cutaneous anaphylaxis in rats, experimental allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthmatic responses in actively sensitized guinea pigs. Olopatadine exerted no significant effects on action potential duration in isolated guinea pig myocardium and ventricular myocytes. Olopatadine was highly and rapidly absorbed in healthy volunteers. The urinary excretion of olopatadine accounted for not less than 58% and the contribution of metabolism was low in the elimination of olopatadine. Olopatadine was shown to be useful for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria in double-blind clinical trials. Olopatadine was approved in Japan for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, chronic urticaria, eczema dermatitis, prurigo, pruritus cutaneous, psoriasis vulgaris and erythema exsudativum multiforme in December, 2000.

    Topics: Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depression, Chemical; Dibenzoxepins; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Inflammation Mediators; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis; Pruritus; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Urticaria

2001

Trials

5 trial(s) available for olopatadine-hydrochloride and Urticaria

ArticleYear
Comparison of the efficacy of olopatadine and fexofenadine in chronic idiopathic urticaria patients: a crossover study.
    Pharmacology, 2015, Volume: 95, Issue:1-2

    Olopatadine is one of the second-generation H1 antihistamines that were used for treating allergic disorders initially in Asia, and now also in Western countries. Whereas several trials compared the efficacy on chronic urticaria among second-generation H1 antihistamines, no study has directly compared the clinical efficacy between olopatadine and other H1 antihistamines in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). In this study, we address this issue for the first time and conclude that olopatadine is a good candidate for the treatment of CIU.

    Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Cross-Over Studies; Dibenzoxepins; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Terfenadine; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria

2015
Double dose of cetirizine hydrochloride is effective for patients with urticaria resistant: a prospective, randomized, non-blinded, comparative clinical study and assessment of quality of life.
    The Journal of dermatological treatment, 2013, Volume: 24, Issue:2

    An increased dose of the prescribed drug or a change of the drug is recommended in the treatment for the patients with urticaria refractory to the standard dose of antihistamines. Efficacy and safety of doubling the dose of cetirizine were compared with olopatadine in the patients with symptoms like wheal or itching, despite the treatment with the standard dose of cetirizine.. Cetirizine was administered at 10 mg once daily to 51 patients with urticaria for a mean of 10.1 ± 7.3 days (period A). Patients with inadequate responses were randomized to either cetirizine 20 mg once daily (dose-increase group) or olopatadine 5 mg twice daily (drug-change group) for a mean of 13.3 ± 8.3 days (Period B). The severity of wheal and itching, and the quality of life (QOL) measured by Skindex-16 were evaluated.. In period A, an adequate response was obtained in 64.7% (33/51). Nine patients each with inadequate response were randomized to either the drug-change or dose-increase groups. A significant improvement was observed in the severity of wheal and itching in the dose-increase group in period B. The QOL was significantly improved in all sub-scales of Skindex-16.. Doubling the dose of cetirizine may be efficacious to the patients with urticaria refractory to the regular dose of cetirizine.

    Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Cetirizine; Dibenzoxepins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Prospective Studies; Pruritus; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria

2013
Olopatadine versus levocetirizine in chronic urticaria: an observer-blind, randomized, controlled trial of effectiveness and safety.
    The Journal of dermatological treatment, 2013, Volume: 24, Issue:6

    Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterized by frequent appearance of wheals for ≥ 6 weeks. This study was undertaken to compare effectiveness and safety of olopatadine, a newer antihistamine with additional anti-inflammatory properties, in treating CU in comparison to the established second-generation antihistamine levocetirizine.. A single center, assessor-blind, randomized (1:1), active-controlled, parallel group, Phase IV trial (CTRI/2011/08/001965) was conducted with 120 adult CU patients of either sex. Subjects received either olopatadine (5 mg b.i.d.) or levocetirizine (5 mg/day) for 9 weeks, continuously for first 4 weeks and then on demand basis for last 5 weeks. Primary outcome measures were urticaria activity score (UAS) and urticaria total severity score (TSS). Routine hematological and biochemical tests and treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored for safety.. Data from 54 subjects on olopatadine and 51 on levocetirizine were analyzed for effectiveness. UAS and TSS values declined significantly with both drugs over the treatment period but the reduction was greater with olopatadine. Adverse event profiles were comparable with sedation being the commonest complaint.. Olopatadine is a safe and more effective alternative to levocetirizine in the treatment of CU.

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Allergic Agents; Cetirizine; Chronic Disease; Dibenzoxepins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Single-Blind Method; Urticaria; Young Adult

2013
Effects of single therapeutic doses of promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine on psychomotor function and histamine-induced wheal- and flare-responses: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers.
    Archives of dermatological research, 2012, Volume: 304, Issue:4

    Since most first-generation antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous systems (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to improve patients' quality of life. However, there are few reports that directly compare the antihistaminic efficacy and impairment of psychomotor functions. We designed a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study to concurrently compare the clinical effectiveness of promethazine, a first-generation antihistamine, and fexofenadine and olopatadine, second-generation antihistamines, by measuring their potency as peripheral inhibitors of histamine-induced wheal and flare. Further, we investigated their sedative effects on the CNS using a battery of psychomotor tests. When single therapeutic doses of fexofenadine (60 mg), olopatadine (5 mg) and promethazine (25 mg) were given in a double-blind manner to 24 healthy volunteers, all antihistamines produced a significant reduction in the wheal and flare responses induced by histamine. In the comparison among antihistamines, olopatadine showed a rapid inhibitory effect compared with fexofenadine and promethazine, and had a potent effect compared with promethazine. In a battery of psychomotor assessments using critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, compensatory tracking, rapid visual information processing and a line analogue rating scale as a subjective assessment of sedation, promethazine significantly impaired psychomotor function. Fexofenadine and olopatadine had no significant effect in any of the psychomotor tests. Promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine did not affect behavioral activity, as measured by wrist actigraphy. These results suggest that olopatadine at a therapeutic dose has greater antihistaminergic activity than promethazine, and olopatadine and fexofenadine did not cause cognitive or psychomotor impairment.

    Topics: Adolescent; Dibenzoxepins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Promethazine; Pruritus; Psychomotor Performance; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Terfenadine; Urticaria; Young Adult

2012
Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine during a 24 h period: a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis.
    Archives of dermatological research, 2008, Volume: 300, Issue:6

    Potency of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine in standard-dose application were compared from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study of ten healthy volunteers on histamine-induced flare and wheal response using an iontophoresis technique. The suppressive effect of olopatadine on the wheals induced by a 0.1-mA histamine iontophoresis lasted for 24 h after dosing. Fexofenadine administered using the same regimen was the least effective among three drugs tested. Suppression of the wheal response by cetirizine, taken once-daily, decreased with time. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2-mA histamine iontophoresis, although fexofenadine and cetirizine were less effective on the wheals induced by the same histamine challenge. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug- and placebo-treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine is the most potent antihistamine among the three H(1)-blockers when administered in a standard dosage.

    Topics: Adult; Cetirizine; Cross-Over Studies; Dibenzoxepins; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Iontophoresis; Male; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Skin; Terfenadine; Urticaria

2008

Other Studies

2 other study(ies) available for olopatadine-hydrochloride and Urticaria

ArticleYear
Clinical characteristics in cholinergic urticaria with palpebral angioedema: Report of 15 cases.
    Journal of dermatological science, 2017, Volume: 85, Issue:2

    Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Angioedema; Cyclosporine; Eyelids; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Histamine Release; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Malassezia; Middle Aged; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Retrospective Studies; Skin Tests; Urticaria; Young Adult

2017
Analysis of disease-dependent sedative profiles of H(1)-antihistamines by large-scale surveillance using the visual analog scale.
    Methods and findings in experimental and clinical pharmacology, 2008, Volume: 30, Issue:3

    Sedation is the most frequent side effect of H(1)-antihistamines, and, sometimes, it may be life-threatening for patients. Evaluation of the sedative properties of H(1)-antihistamines is important to improve the patients' quality of life (QOL). Therefore, we carried out a large-scale surveillance quantified through a questionnaire using visual analog scale (VAS) from 1,742 patients. The results showed that the degree of sleepiness caused by some nonsedative second-generation antihistamines, including fexofenadine, olopatadine and cetirizine, was disease dependent. In atopic dermatitis, an unexpectedly low VAS score of sleepiness was obtained for the first-generation antihistamine d-chlorpheniramine, which is similar to those obtained for bepotastine and epinastine. d-Chlorpheniramine also showed a high VAS score in efficacy. Meanwhile, fexofenadine showed a higher VAS score of sleepiness in atopic dermatitis than those obtained in the other allergic diseases including allergic rhinitis, urticaria and asthma. In asthma, a higher VAS score of sleepiness was found for olopatadine, ebastine and cetirizine, when compared with d-chlorpheniramine. On the other hand, bepotastine showed the lowest VAS score for sleepiness. Our findings suggest the existence of unknown factors influencing the sedative properties of H(1)-antihistamines. Therefore, appropriate H(1)-antihistamines may need to be selected, depending on allergic diseases, to improve patients' QOL.

    Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Asthma; Butyrophenones; Cetirizine; Child; Chlorpheniramine; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dibenzazepines; Dibenzoxepins; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Imidazoles; Japan; Male; Middle Aged; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Pain Measurement; Piperidines; Population Surveillance; Psychomotor Performance; Pyridines; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Sleep Stages; Surveys and Questionnaires; Terfenadine; Urticaria

2008