-
Japanese Journal of Pharmacology Apr 2002Olopatadine hydrochloride (olopatadine, 11-[(Z)-3-(dimethylamino)propylidene]-6,11-dihydrodibenz[b,e]oxepin-2-acetic acid monohydrochloride) is a novel... (Review)
Review
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
PubMed: 12046981
DOI: 10.1254/jjp.88.379 -
Patient Preference and Adherence 2023Combination intranasal corticosteroid and antihistamine sprays are a first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR), of which Azelastine Hydrochloride and...
Patient Satisfaction and Sensory Attributes of Nasal Spray Treatments of Olopatadine Hydrochloride/Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate and Azelastine Hydrochloride/Fluticasone Propionate for Allergic Rhinitis in Australia - An Observational Real-World Clinical Study.
PURPOSE
Combination intranasal corticosteroid and antihistamine sprays are a first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR), of which Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate nasal spray (AZE/FLU; Dymista), and Olopatadine Hydrochloride and Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate nasal spray (OLO/MOM; Ryaltris) are currently registered in Australia. As it is not known how patients value treatment attributes of current combination nasal sprays, this observational, real-world clinical study aimed to understand patients' satisfaction with, and importance of, treatment attributes of OLO/MOM and AZE/FLU using an Anchored Best-Worst Scaling (ABWS) exercise.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS
Four hundred and twenty-six adults in Australia with moderate to severe AR using either OLO/MOM or AZE/FLU completed an online survey incorporating an ABWS with 11 domains: 7 sensory (immediate taste of medication, aftertaste of medication, smell of medication, irritation to your nose, urge to sneeze, dripping out your nose/down your throat, dryness of your nose/throat) and 4 treatment-related (convenience, fast acting, duration of effect, and AR symptom control). The ABWS involved rescaling individual BWS scores using anchored ratings (0-10) for most and least satisfied/important domains to create a total satisfaction index (TSI) (0-100) to be compared across groups. Statistical comparisons were completed using ANOVA (TSI) and MANOVA (individual domains).
RESULTS
Participants using OLO/MOM ( = 68.26, = 1.39) had significantly higher TSI than participants using AZE/FLU (=62.78, = 0.70) ( < 0.001), significantly higher satisfaction on 7 of 11 domains and regarded 8 of 11 domains as significantly more important compared to participants using AZE/FLU (all < 0.05). Preferred domains were predominantly sensory attributes.
CONCLUSION
Current findings showed that participants using OLO/MOM were more satisfied with their overall treatment compared to participants using AZE/FLU, particularly with sensory attributes, thus highlighting the suitability of OLO/MOM for people with AR who value sensory attributes. Prescribers of AR treatments are encouraged to discuss treatment attributes with patients to facilitate shared decision-making.
PubMed: 36687019
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S389875 -
Translational and Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2021Histamine acts by binding to four histamine receptors (H1 to H4), of which the H1 is known to participate in dilate blood vessels, bronchoconstriction, and pruritus....
UNLABELLED
Histamine acts by binding to four histamine receptors (H1 to H4), of which the H1 is known to participate in dilate blood vessels, bronchoconstriction, and pruritus. Olopatadine hydrochloride blocks the release of histamine from mast cells and it inhibits H1 receptor activation. Olopatadine hydrochloride is anti-allergic agent that is effectively used. The object of this study had conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety characteristics between olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg (test formulation) and olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg (reference formulation; Alerac ) in Korean subjects. This study had conducted an open-label, randomized, fasting condition, single-dose, 2-treatment, 2-period, 2-way crossover. Subjects received single-dosing of reference formulation or test formulation in each period and blood samples were collected over 24 hours after administration for PK analysis. A wash-out period of 7 days was placed between the doses. Plasma concentration of olopatadine were determined using liquid chromatography-tandem spectrometry mass (LC-MS/MS). A total of 32 subjects were enrolled and 28 subjects completed. There were not clinical significantly different in the safety between two treatment groups for 32 subjects who administered the study drug more than once. The geometric mean ratio of test formulation to reference formulation and its 90% confidence intervals for The peak plasma concentration (C) and the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to the last concentration (AUC) were 1.0845 (1.0107-1.1637) and 1.0220 (1.0005-1.0439), respectively. Therefore, the test formulation was bioequivalent in PK characteristics and was equally safe as the reference formulation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0005943.
PubMed: 33855002
DOI: 10.12793/tcp.2021.29.e6 -
Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical... Dec 2019Forced degradation determines the intrinsic stability of a molecule by establishing degradation pathways in order to identify the likely degradation products (DPs). The...
OBJECTIVES
Forced degradation determines the intrinsic stability of a molecule by establishing degradation pathways in order to identify the likely degradation products (DPs). The objective of the present research was to establish intrinsic stability and forced degradation profiling of olopatadine hydrochloride.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The intrinsic stability of olopatadine hydrochloride was evaluated by RP-HPLC, where a mixture of 0.1% formic acid and organic phase (methanol:acetonitrile; 50:50 % v/v) was used as mobile phase at 1.0 mL/min in gradient mode. Different stress conditions were employed to explore the intrinsic stability of olopatadine hydrochloride.
RESULTS
In acidic condition, five DPs, i.e. OLO1, OLO2, OLO3, OLO4, and OLO5, were observed. OLO5 was the major DP that increased with time and the peak area of OLO was decreased. In addition to OLO3 and OLO5, two more DPs were observed in alkaline condition, i.e. OLO6 and OLO7. OLO5 and OLO6 were two major DPs; OLO5 increased with time while OLO6 had a zigzag pattern of peak area with time. All DPs of neutral condition were also found in acidic condition while OLO3 and OLO5 were common in all three types of hydrolytic degradation.
CONCLUSION
Thus, OLO has similar pattern of degradation profiling in all hydrolytic conditions (acidic, alkaline, and neutral). No degradation was found in thermal, ultraviolet light, or oxidative conditions over 10 days. OLO-Imp was recognized as an analogue structure of OLO and proposed as 11-[(3-dimethylamino)-propylidene]-6,11-dihydro-dibenz[b,e]oxepin-2-propanoic acid in standard drug. OLO1 was identified as (2-(4-(dimethylamino) butyl) phenyl)methanol, which may be formed by cleavage of the tricyclic ring in neutral condition.
PubMed: 32454741
DOI: 10.4274/tjps.galenos.2018.83007 -
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Nov 2022GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of GSP301 in pediatric patients (aged ≥6 to <12 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).
METHODS
This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study randomized 446 eligible patients 1:1 (GSP301 [olopatadine hydrochloride 665 μg and mometasone furoate 25 μg] or placebo) as 1 spray/each nostril twice daily for 14 days. The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning and evening subject-reported 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) over a 14-day treatment period analyzed using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Additional assessments included instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, reflective Total Ocular Symptoms Score, instantaneous Total Ocular Symptoms Score, individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score, and adverse events.
RESULTS
GSP301 showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rTNSS vs placebo (-0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to -0.2; P = .001). Statistically significant improvements favoring GSP301 were shown for all individual rTNSS symptoms, instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, and most of its individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (P = .01), and Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P < .001). For ocular symptoms, numerical improvements favoring GSP301 were observed, with statistical significance achieved only for reflective "tearing/watering eyes" (P = .04). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12.0% and 10.4% of patients in the GSP301 and placebo groups, respectively. One subject (0.5%) (placebo group) experienced a serious adverse event (suspected viral meningitis) that was not related to the study treatment and was resolved.
CONCLUSION
GSP301 was well tolerated and efficacious for treating SAR symptoms in pediatric patients and showed a favorable safety profile.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03463031.
Topics: Humans; Child; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Nasal Sprays; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Mometasone Furoate; Double-Blind Method; Administration, Intranasal; Anti-Allergic Agents
PubMed: 35926824
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.07.029 -
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Feb 2020GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal AR (SAR).
METHODS
In this phase 2, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 25 μg), once-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 50 μg), twice-daily or once-daily olopatadine monotherapy (665 μg), mometasone monotherapy (twice-daily 25 μg or once-daily 50 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary endpoint-mean change from baseline in morning and evening reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; P < .05 = statistically significant). Average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 1111 patients were randomized. Twice-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (P < .001), twice-daily olopatadine (P = .049), and mometasone (P = .004). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were observed with twice-daily GSP301 vs placebo (P < .001) and twice-daily mometasone (P = .007); improvements were not significant vs olopatadine (P = .058). Once-daily GSP301 provided significant rTNSS and iTNSS improvements vs placebo and once-daily olopatadine (P < .01, all) but improvements were not significant vs mometasone. Treatment-emergent AEs rates were 10.8%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, with twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, and placebo, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Twice-daily GSP301 treatment was efficacious and well tolerated, providing statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (primary endpoint) vs placebo and both monotherapies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02318303.
Topics: Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mometasone Furoate; Nasal Sprays; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31734334
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.11.007 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Feb 2021To compare the efficacy and safety of Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2%, and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solutions in the treatment of allergic... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
To compare the efficacy and safety of Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2%, and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solutions in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.
METHODS
This is a prospective, observer-masked, comparative study of 180 patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis, randomized into three groups of 60 patients each. Each group was assigned to be treated with one of the three treatment options namely Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solutions. Patients were followed-up at regular intervals with relief and resolution of symptoms and signs noted using Total Ocular Scoring System (TOSS) and hyperaemia scale.
RESULTS
All three topical medications were effective in resolving symptoms of the patients with mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis. Baseline mean TOSS scores for Alcaftadine group, Olopatadine group and Bepotastine besilate group were (7.68±2.32), (7.65±2.32) and (7.45±2.27) respectively as compared to the corresponding TOSS scores on 14 Day (4 visit) which were (0.2 ± 0.43), (0.4 ± 0.56) and (0.1 ± 0.36) respectively. The resolution of symptoms in the Bepotastine and Alcaftadine groups was significantly profound as compared to the Olopatadine group (p = 0.008). Bepotastine and Alcaftadine groups significantly reduced allergic conjunctivitis symptoms compared to Olopatadine group (p = 0.008).
CONCLUSION
All three topical ophthalmic medications used in the study are safe and effective in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. However, Bepotastine and Alcaftadine appear to outweigh Olopatadine in resolving the symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Benzazepines; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Imidazoles; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Ophthalmic Solutions; Piperidines; Prospective Studies; Pyridines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33463568
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2083_20 -
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic... Dec 2016The use of corticosteroids or antihistaminics in treatment of allergic rhinitis is known and practiced since long. The efficacy of topical use of fluticasone propionate...
INTRODUCTION
The use of corticosteroids or antihistaminics in treatment of allergic rhinitis is known and practiced since long. The efficacy of topical use of fluticasone propionate and Olopatadine Hydrochloride (HCL) for symptomatic relief of allergic rhinitis has been studied either individually or with other drugs. But very few studies show comparison between these two drugs.
AIM
To compare the efficacy of topical use of fluticasone propionate and olopatadine hydrochloride for symptomatic relief of allergic rhinitis.
DESIGN
In this single blind, randomized control study, the efficacy of topical use of olopatadine HCL was compared with fluticasone propionate for relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The symptomatic cases were randomized in two groups for treatment using either olopatadine HCL or fluticasone propionate respectively. In each group, the Total Symptom Scores (TSS) and individual symptom scores were recorded before and after treatment with the help of symptom evaluation scale.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Chi-square test, unpaired t-test, Mann Witney U-test, and Wilcoxon signed Rank test were used during analysis. The results of the comparison were noted and analysed.
RESULTS
During four week study period both TSS and individual symptom score were reduced (p<0.05) in either groups. The TSS decreased by an average of 85.07% for those treated with olopatadine and by 95.55% for those treated with fluticasone.
CONCLUSION
Overall fluticasone propionate was superior to olopatadine in relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis (p<0.005).
PubMed: 28208892
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20810.9120 -
Journal of Pharmacology &... Oct 2011To compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine and rupatadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine and rupatadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A 2-week, single-centered, randomized, open, parallel group comparative clinical study was conducted on patients with SAR. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 70 patients were recruited and were randomized to two treatment groups and received the respective drugs for 2 weeks. At follow-up, clinical improvement was assessed in terms of change in total and differential count of leucocytes, serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) level, Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scoring.
RESULTS
Both the drugs significantly reduced the differential count (P<0.001) and absolute eosinophil count (P<0.001), but olopatadine was found to be superior. In olopatadine group, there was significantly higher reduction in serum IgE (P=0.01), TNSS (P<0.001) and RQLQ score (P=0.015) than that of rupatadine. Incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group.
CONCLUSIONS
Olopatadine is a better choice in SAR in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy and safety profile.
PubMed: 22025856
DOI: 10.4103/0976-500X.85958 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2017To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.77% olopatadine from 2 independent (Phase I and Phase III, respectively) clinical...
PURPOSE
To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.77% olopatadine from 2 independent (Phase I and Phase III, respectively) clinical studies in healthy subjects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Phase I, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥18 years old (N=36) to assess the systemic pharmacokinetics of olopatadine 0.77% following single- and multiple-dose exposures. The Phase III, multicenter, randomized (2:1), vehicle-controlled study was conducted in subjects ≥2 years old (N=499) to evaluate long-term ocular safety of olopatadine 0.77%. Subjects received olopatadine 0.77% or vehicle once daily bilaterally for 7 days in the pharmacokinetic study and 6 weeks in the safety study.
RESULTS
In the pharmacokinetic study, olopatadine 0.77% was absorbed slowly and reached a peak plasma concentration (C) of 1.65 ng/mL following single-dose and 1.45 ng/mL following multiple-dose exposures in 2 hours (time to reach maximum plasma concentration [T]). After reaching peak concentrations, olopatadine showed a similar mono-exponential decay following single and multiple doses with mean elimination half-life ranging from 2.90 to 3.40 hours. No accumulation in olopatadine exposure (C and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours) was evident after multiple doses when compared to single dose. In the safety study, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 26.7% and 31.4% of subjects with olopatadine 0.77% and vehicle, respectively. Blurred vision was the most frequent ocular treatment-emergent adverse event in both treatment groups (olopatadine 0.77% vs vehicle, 4.8% vs 4.1%). No deaths or serious adverse events were reported during the study.
CONCLUSION
Olopatadine 0.77% had minimal systemic exposure or accumulation in healthy subjects and was well tolerated in both adult and pediatric subjects.
PubMed: 28435218
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S126690