Dataset Information

Nasal IgE in subjects with allergic and non-allergic rhinitis.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:The prevalence of "ocal allergic rhinitis" within individuals suffering from perennial rhinitis remains uncertain, and patients usually are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of a potential "local allergic rhinitis" in subjects suffering from non-allergic rhinitis in a non-selected group of young students. Methods:131 students (age 25.0 ± 5.1 years) with a possible allergic rhinitis and 25 non-allergic controls without rhinitis symptoms (age 22.0 ± 2.0 years) were recruited by public postings. 97 of 131 students with rhinitis were tested positive (?3 mm) to prick testing with 17 frequent allergens at visit 1. Twenty-four 24 subjects with a house dust mite allergy, 21 subjects with a non-allergic rhinitis, and 18 non-allergic controls were further investigated at visit 2. Blood samples were taken, and nasal secretion was examined. In addition, all groups performed a nasal provocation test with house dust mite (HDM). Results:In serum and nasal secretion, total IgE and house dust mite specific IgE significantly differed between HDM positive subjects and controls. However, no differences between non-allergic subjects and control subjects were quantifiable. Neither a nasal provocation test nor a nasal IgE to HDM allergens showed a measurable positive response in any of the non-allergic rhinitis subjects as well as the healthy controls, whilst being positive in 13 subjects with HDM allergy. Conclusions:Nasal IgE is present in subjects with HDM allergy, but not in non-allergic rhinitis. In the investigated non-selected population, exclusive local production of IgE is absent. By implication, therefore, our findings challenge the emerging concept of local allergic rhinitis.Study identifier at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02810535.

SUBMITTER: Eckrich J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7322186 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nasal IgE in subjects with allergic and non-allergic rhinitis.

Eckrich Jonas J Hinkel Julia J Fischl Anna A Herrmann Eva E Holtappels Gabriele G Bachert Claus C Zielen Stefan S

The World Allergy Organization journal 20200623 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>The prevalence of "ocal allergic rhinitis" within individuals suffering from perennial rhinitis remains uncertain, and patients usually are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of a potential "local allergic rhinitis" in subjects suffering from non-allergic rhinitis in a non-selected group of young students.<h4>Methods</h4>131 students (age 25.0 ± 5.1 years) with a possible allergic rhinitis and 25 non-allergic controls withou ...[more]

PMID: 32612737

Similar Datasets

Project description:Nasal cytology is important in the diagnosis and treatment of nasal inflammatory diseases. Treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) according to nasal cytology has not been fully studied. We plan to explore the individualized treatment of AR according to nasal cytology.Nasal cytology from 468 AR patients was examined for inflammatory cell quantity (grade 0-5) and the percentage of neutrophils and eosinophils. Results were subdivided into the following categories: AR(Eos), eosinophil ?50% of the whole inflammatory cells; AR(Neu), neutrophils ?90%; AR(Eos/Neu), 10%? eosinophil <50%; AR(Low), grade 0/1 inflammatory cell quantity. Nasal cytology-guided treatment was implemented: all AR(Eos) patients (n=22) and half of the AR(Neu) patients (AR[Neu1], n=22) were treated with mometasone furoate spray and oral loratadine. Another half of the AR(Neu) patients (AR[Neu2], n=22) were treated with oral clarithromycin. Visual analog scale (VAS), symptom scores, and nasal cytology were evaluated 2 weeks before and after treatment.There were 224/468 (47.86%) AR(Eos), 67/468 (14.32%) AR(Neu), 112/468 (23.93%) AR(Eos/Neu), and 65/468 (13.89%) AR(Low) of the AR patients studied. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics among these subgroups, except that the nasal blockage score was higher in AR(Eos) patients than in AR(Neu) patients (1.99 vs 1.50, P=0.02). Comparing AR(Eos) patients with AR(Neu1) patients 2 weeks after treatment, nasal symptoms and VAS were significantly lower in AR(Eos) patients, except for nasal blockage symptoms (P<0.05 of nasal itching and sneezing; P<0.01 for nasal secretion, total scores, and VAS). Comparing AR(Neu1) with AR(Neu2) patients, nasal symptoms, and VAS were significantly lower in AR(Neu2), except for nasal blockage and nasal itching symptoms (P<0.05 for nasal secretions, sneezing, total score, and VAS).Nasal cytology may have important value in subtyping AR and optimizing AR treatment. Treating neutrophils is very important in AR patients with locally predominant neutrophils.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The safety and efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) for the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis have been previously demonstrated in several clinical studies. The objective of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FFNS 110 mcg once daily with placebo in patients with irritant (non-allergic) rhinitis triggered predominantly by air pollution. METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study of subjects in Thailand with irritant rhinitis who received either FFNS 110 mcg (N=53) or placebo (N=49) once-daily. Subjects with a ?2 year history of air pollution as their predominant rhinitis trigger, negative skin test to local seasonal/perennial allergens, positive histamine skin test, and normal sinus radiograph were enrolled if they met minimum reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) ?4.5 (maximum=9) and a nasal congestion score of ?2 (maximum =3). All were assessed for nasal eosinophilia at study entry and completion. Air quality was monitored throughout the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline over the treatment period in daily rTNSS, the average of the morning and evening rTNSS. The key secondary measure was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in morning pre-dose instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS). RESULTS:The Air Quality Index (AQI) during the study generally did not reach unhealthy levels. Baseline daily rTNSS scores were similar between treatment groups (FFNS=6.7; placebo=6.4). The least square mean change from baseline in rTNSS was -2.17 and -2.10 for FFNS and placebo, respectively, with a difference of -0.065 (p=0.845). Gradual improvements were seen in both treatment groups for iTNSS; however, the treatment difference (-0.075) was not statistically significant (p=0.827). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for AM and PM rTNSS, individual nasal symptoms, daily reflective, AM and PM reflective and AM pre-dose instantaneous total ocular symptom scores (TOSS) or individual ocular symptom scores. Nasal cytology at baseline found more than two-thirds of subjects had <20% eosinophils. Adverse events were few and similar between groups and noted as mild in intensity. CONCLUSION:Subjects receiving FFNS had similar improvement to placebo in their rhinitis symptoms. The lack of a treatment effect may be in part due to the overall good air quality present throughout the study or an insufficient dose or duration of FFNS. The safety findings showed FFNS 110 mcg once daily to be well tolerated.

Dataset Information

Nasal IgE in subjects with allergic and non-allergic rhinitis.

Publications

Nasal IgE in subjects with allergic and non-allergic rhinitis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets