Elsevier

Clinical Therapeutics

Volume 25, Issue 8, August 2003, Pages 2245-2267
Clinical Therapeutics

Original research
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

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(03)80217-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Background: It is presumed that exposure to allergens in the environment occurs through both the eyes and the nose. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is typically treated with a nasal spray or systemic antihistamine, neither of which may provide adequate relief of the ocular component of the disease.

Objective: This study was designed to gain a better understanding of the physiologic interaction between the conjunctival and nasal mucosa and thus help establish a profile for the most effective ocular treatment in patients whose allergies have both an ocular and a nasal component.

Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked clinical study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) and nasal allergen challenge (NAC) models. It compared the clinical signs and symptoms induced by CAC and NAC, the effects of drugs administered by 3 different routes, and the movement of fluorescein after instillation into the eye and nose (Jones test), and assessed levels of of inflammatory mediators in tears and nasal secretions. At visit l, subjects previously identified as CAC responders underwent NAC to determine the dose of allergen necessary to elicit a sufficient positive reaction. At visit 2, which took place 1 week later, subjects with a positive reaction at visit 1 were randomized to group A (CAC) or group B (NAC), and underwent challenge to confirm the allergen dose necessary to produce a positive reaction. Subjects who qualified were randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution, placebo nasal spray, and placebo tablets; mometasone furoate monohydrate 50-μg nasal spray, placebo topical solution, and placebo tablets; or fexofenadine hydrochloride 180-mg tablets, placebo topical solution, and placebo nasal spray. All study medications were administered according to their approved labeling: drops were administered twice daily in the eyes, and the nasal sprays and tablets were administered once daily. At visit 3, which took place 1 week after visit 2, subjects received study medication and 15 minutes later underwent CAC or NAC as before. The primary efficacy variables were ocular itching, ocular redness, and overall nasal symptoms (sneezing, rhino rrhea/postnasal drip, nasal pruritus, palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) rated on standard scales. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) was measured at each visit, and the Jones test was performed at visits 1 and 3. At baseline and after challenge at visits 2 and 3, tear and nasal lavage samples were collected from a subset of randomly selected subjects for analysis of eosinophil cationic protein and tryptase.

Results: Seventy-three subjects (42 women, 31 men; mean age, 45.26 years [range, 21–73 years]) were screened, and all were randomized to treatment. Two subjects did not complete the study. CAC induced clinically significant (>1 unit difference) ocular and nasal signs and symptoms, whereas NAC induced clinically significant nasal signs and symptoms only. In group A, there was a greater reduction in ocular itching with olopatadine compared with mometasone and fexofenadine at 3 minutes (P = 0.003 and P = 0.008, respectively) and 5 minutes (P = 0.007 and P = 0.013) after challenge. Although the difference was not statistically significant, overall relief of conjunctival redness (average of 3 vessel beds) was greatest in the olopatadine group, followed by fexofenadine. In group B, prevention of total nasal symptoms was significantly greater with mometasone compared with fexofenadine at 20 minutes (P = 0.006) and 30 minutes (P = 0.014) after challenge. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in nasal symptom scores at any time point after CAC. There were also no significant differences in PNIF between treatment groups. Fluorescein was present in nasal secretions within 5 minutes of being instilled into the eye; no fluorescein was detected in the eye after instillation into the nose.

Conclusions: In this study, exposure of the nasal mucosa to allergen resulted in allergic rhinitis, and exposure of the ocular surface to allergen resulted in conjunctivitis with a secondary effect in the nose. These results suggest movement of allergens, their mediators, and antiallergy drugs from the ocular surfaces into the nasal cavity, with no meaningful movement from the nasal cavity to the ocular surface. In this controlled model, both the systemic agent and the nasal spray failed to control ocular symptoms. The topical ophthalmic solution provided the most effective management of allergic ocular signs and symptoms, and the nasal spray was most effective for nasal symptoms. Combined use of a nasal spray and topical ophthalmic solution may provide maximal relief in patients whose allergies have both ocular and nasal components.

References (39)

  • Z.M. Munk et al.

    Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

    Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol

    (1996)
  • J.C. Selner et al.

    Onset of action of aqueous beclomethasone dipropionate nasal spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis

    Clin Ther

    (1995)
  • E.F. Juniper et al.

    Comparison of beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray, astemizole, and the combination in the prophylactic treatment of ragweed pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis

    J Allergy Clin Immunol

    (1989)
  • G.J. Berdy 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)
  • M.B. Abelson et al.

    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)
  • F.P. Paulsen et al.

    Animal model for the absorption of lipophilic substances from tear fluid by the epithelium of the nasolacrimal ducts

    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci

    (2002)
  • Patanol [package insert]. Fort Worth, Tex: Alcon Laboratories, Inc;...
  • Nasonex [package insert]. Kenilworth, NJ: Schering Corporation...
  • Allegra [package insert]. Kansas City, Mo: Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc;...
  • Cited by (55)

    • Conventional medications for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis

      2022, Allergic and Immunologic Diseases: A Practical Guide to the Evaluation, Diagnosis and Management of Allergic and Immunologic Diseases
    • Tear cytokine levels in allergic rhinitis without ocular symptoms

      2019, Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Some treatments that have started to utilize this concept include using wraparound spectacles to improve the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis28 and utilizing intranasal corticosteroids and nasal filters to manage the ocular symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.29–35 The interrelatedness of allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis may tempt the clinician to consider monotherapy (treating either the nasal or the ocular inflammation) in the hope that the less severely affected organ will respond also, but we advise caution in this matter, as the results obtained thus far are variable.32,36,37 Although we are limited by our small sample size, no other previously published work has demonstrated increased levels of inflammatory cytokines in the tear film of patients with isolated allergic rhinitis without evidence of allergic conjunctivitis.

    • Comparison of mometasone furoate monohydrate (Nasonex) and fluticasone propionate (Flixonase) nasal sprays in the treatment of dust mite-sensitive children with perennial allergic rhinitis

      2013, Pediatrics and Neonatology
      Citation Excerpt :

      FP delivered through the intranasal route has an absolute bioavailability average of <2%, and MFM shows extremely low bioavailability (<1%) in plasma.20,21 Thus, nasal sprays may fail to control ocular symptoms if they cannot induce any meaningful movement of allergens, their mediators, or antiallergy drugs from the nasal cavity to the ocular surface.22 We found MFM sprays to be significantly more effective than FP sprays for relieving nasal symptoms, as evidenced by the differences in TSS between the two groups.

    • Nasal-Ocular Reflexes and Their Role in the Management of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis with Intranasal Steroids

      2011, World Allergy Organization Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      Some authors have suggested that intranasal steroids increase drainage in inflamed nasolacrimal ducts, thereby reducing conjunctival exposure to allergens and inflammatory mediators. However, duct patency has been found to be maintained in subjects who had symptomatic allergic responses after ocular challenge36. It has also been suggested that intranasal steroids might travel through the nasolacrimal duct, exerting their anti-inflammatory effect directly on the conjunctiva.

    • Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution for the relief of nonocular symptoms provoked by conjunctival allergen challenge

      2010, Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Using both nasal allergen challenge and CAC may have been more representative of the nasal and ocular signs and symptoms experienced in the environment. It has been previously shown that both nasal allergen challenge and CAC induce similar patterns of allergic response and effectiveness of clinical treatment for nasal and ocular allergic reactions.4 Therefore, the nasal symptom results using the CAC method can be considered to mimic the nasal symptoms of a nasal allergen challenge, which in the present CAC studies satisfactorily induced nonocular (particularly nasal) allergic symptoms and provided evidence of effective improvement after treatment with 1.5% bepotastine besilate.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text