Comparison of the secretory response of the nasal mucosa to methacholine and histamine

Further Understanding of Neuro-Immune Interactions in Allergy: Implications in Pathophysiology and Role in Disease Progression

The complicated interaction between the central and the autonomic (sympathetic, parasympathetic, and enteric) nervous systems on the one hand and the immune system and its components, on the other hand, seems to substantially contribute to allergy pathophysiology, uncovering an under-recognized association that could have diagnostic and therapeutic potentials. Neurons connect directly with and regulate the function of many immune cells, including mast cells, the cells that have a leading role in allergic disorders. Proinflammatory mediators such as cytokines, neurotrophins, chemokines, and neuropeptides are released by immune cells, which stimulate sensory neurons. The release of neurotransmitters and neuropeptides caused by the activation of these neurons directly impacts the functional activity of immune cells and vice versa, playing a decisive role in this communication. Successful application of Pavlovian conditioning in allergic disorders supports the existence of a psychoneuroimmunological interplay in classical allergic hypersensitivity reactions. Activation of neuronal homeostatic reflexes, like sneezing in allergic rhinitis, coughing in allergic asthma, and vomiting in food allergy, offers additional evidence of a neuroimmunological interaction that aims to maintain homeostasis. Dysregulation of this interaction may cause overstimulation of the immune system that will produce profound symptoms and exaggerated hemodynamic responses that will lead to severe allergic pathophysiological events, including anaphylaxis. In this article, we have systematically reviewed and discussed the evidence regarding the role of the neuro-immune interactions in common allergic clinical modalities like allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, allergic asthma, food allergy, atopic dermatitis, and urticaria. It is essential to understand unknown – to most of the immunology and allergy experts – neurological networks that not only physiologically cooperate with the immune system to regulate homeostasis but also pathogenetically interact with more or less known immunological pathways, contribute to what is known as neuroimmunological inflammation, and shift homeostasis to instability and disease clinical expression. This understanding will provide recognition of new allergic phenotypes/endotypes and directions to focus on specialized treatments, as the era of personalized patient-centered medicine, is hastening apace.

Nonallergic Rhinitis: Mechanism of Action

Nonallergic rhinitis is a common disease that affects many Americans. It is characterized by nasal symptoms of congestion and rhinorrhea without evidence of allergic sensitization. The pathophysiology of the disease has not been studied extensively. In the following article, the author concentrates on summarizing the available information related to cellular inflammation and neurogenic mechanisms in patients with nonallergic rhinitis. The author also explores nasal reactivity to various stimuli in these patients.

Unilateral nasal allergic reactions increase bilateral sinus eosinophil infiltration

We have previously shown that unilateral nasal challenge with antigen causes an increase in the number of eosinophils in the ipsilateral maxillary sinus. Here we aimed to determine whether there was an eosinophil response in the contralateral maxillary sinus after unilateral nasal challenge with antigen. Twenty subjects with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis and a positive nasal challenge to ragweed or grass allergens were studied outside of their allergy season. Catheters were placed in both maxillary sinuses and the subjects were challenged with antigen via the left nostril. The subjects recorded nasal symptoms before and after each allergen challenge and hourly for 8 h afterward. We performed nasal lavages of the nose and sinuses at the same time as symptoms were recorded. The lavages were analyzed for the number of eosinophils and levels of albumin. Subjects showed a symptomatic response to challenge accompanied by an influx of eosinophils into the nose and increased vascular permeability. The number of eosinophils increased in both maxillary sinuses. The total change from diluent in eosinophils during the late phase response was higher in the ipsilateral maxillary sinus (median = 8,505; range = 0-100,360) compared with the contralateral sinus (median = 1,596; range = -13,527-93,373; P = 0.03). We conclude that eosinophils increase in both maxillary sinuses after unilateral nasal challenge. We speculate that a central neurologic reflex initiated in the nose by the nasal challenge contributes to the bilateral eosinophil response in the maxillary sinuses. We further speculate that, since there are more eosinophils in the ipsilateral compared with the contralateral maxillary sinus, there is also an axonal reflex into the ipsilateral maxillary sinus that contributed to the eosinophil response.

The release of IL-31 and IL-13 after nasal allergen challenge and their relation to nasal symptoms

Background

IL-31, a recently discovered member of the gp130/IL-6 cytokine family, is mainly expressed by human mast cells and T helper type 2 cells. IL-31 is a key trigger of atopic dermatitis. Recent studies also suggest a role of IL-31 in the pathogenesis of other allergic diseases including allergic rhinitis. In the present study we studied the release of IL-31 and IL-13 in allergen-challenged allergic rhinitis patients.

Methods

Seven seasonal allergic volunteers underwent unilateral nasal provocation with allergen (and a control challenge) with the disc method out of the allergy season. Nasal symptom scores (rhinorrhea, itching, sneezing, obstruction) and bilateral nasal secretions were quantified before and after allergen provocation. IL-13 and IL-31 in nasal secretions and serum were measured by electrochemiluminescent immunoassay or ELISA, respectively.

Results

Nasal allergen challenge induced the typical clinical symptoms and physiological changes. IL-31 and IL-13 in nasal secretions increased in four and five, respectively, volunteers at 5 h after allergen but not after control challenge. We observed correlation trends between nasal IL-31 concentrations and IL-13 concentrations (r = 0.9, p = 0.002), and IL-31 contents and symptom scores (r = 0.9, p = 0.013) 5 h after allergen provocation. No IL-31 could be detected contralaterally or systemically in the sera.

Conclusions

The observed local upregulation of IL-31 mainly during the late phase reaction after nasal allergen challenge suggests a role of IL-31 in allergic rhinitis. In which way IL-31 modulates the inflammatory reaction and type 2 responses in allergic rhinitis remains to be investigated.

Evidence of Maxillary Sinus Inflammation in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Objective. Allergic rhinitis has been frequently associated with both acute and chronic sinusitis. Previous studies have shown an influx of eosinophils into the maxillary sinus after nasal challenge with allergen. The objective of this study was to determine, in humans, if the development of seasonal allergic inflammation, secondary to natural allergen exposure, leads to similar inflammation within the maxillary sinus.

Study Design. Prospective, longitudinal study.

Setting. Academic medical center and research laboratory.

Subjects and Methods. Eighteen subjects were evaluated in and out of the ragweed allergy season using subjective measures (nasal symptoms, quality of life), nasal secretory response to methacholine challenge, and evaluation of biomarkers in nasal and sinus lavages.

Results. The subjects became symptomatic during the season and reported worse quality of life and increased nasal reactivity to methacholine. The total number of eosinophils obtained by nasal lavage during the season (median= 35,691) was significantly higher compared with out of season (median = 2811, P ≤ .02). Similarly, there were significantly more eosinophils, albeit to a lesser magnitude, in the maxillary sinus during the season (median = 4248) compared with the out-of-season samples (median = 370, P ≤ .02).

Conclusion. The authors provide evidence that natural exposure to pollen during an individual’s allergy season leads to both nasal and sinus inflammation, strengthening the association between allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. The mechanism of this inflammatory response needs to be elucidated.

Muscarinic receptor antagonists: effects on pulmonary function

In healthy lungs, muscarinic receptors control smooth muscle tone, mucus secretion, vasodilation, and inflammation. In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, cholinergic mechanisms contribute to increased bronchoconstriction and mucus secretion that limit airflow. This chapter reviews neuronal and nonneuronal sources of acetylcholine in the lung and the expression and role of M₁, M₂, and M₃ muscarinic receptor subtypes in lung physiology. It also discusses the evidence for and against the role of parasympathetic nerves in asthma, and the current use and therapeutic potential of muscarinic receptor antagonists in COPD and asthma.

Nasal-ocular reflexes and their role in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with intranasal steroids

Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder and involves the reaction to environmental allergens with resultant nasal and eye symptoms. The pathophysiologic mechanisms of the eye symptoms in allergic conjunctivitis include a direct effect on the eye by deposited allergen and indirect effects related to the deposition of allergen in the nasal mucosa. One of these proposed mechanisms is the existence of a nasal-ocular reflex whereby the nasal allergic reaction leads to an afferent reflex response, the efferent limb of which results in eye symptoms. Among the treatments available for allergic rhinitis, intranasal steroids are most efficacious for nasal symptoms and have also shown sizeable efficacy related to eye symptoms. We speculated that the effect of intranasal steroids on eye symptoms in allergic rhinitis was related to their inhibition of the nasal-ocular reflex and present data previously generated from our laboratory to support this assumption in a nasal challenge model.

Reproducibility of nasal allergen challenge in evaluating the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroid treatment

BACKGROUND

Although nasal challenge with allergen has often been used to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic modalities used for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, the reproducibility of this model in quantitatively evaluating efficacy has not been rigorously examined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reproducibility of the suppressive effects of an intranasal corticosteroid on the clinical and biochemical outcomes of a nasal allergen challenge during two identical treatment periods using the same subjects.

METHODS

In a single-blind study, 25 seasonal allergic subjects with positive skin tests to grass or ragweed were studied outside of their pollen season. Subjects underwent a baseline, three-dose allergen challenge. Beginning 1 week later, subjects received two 7-day courses of intranasal beclomethasone (168 microg b.i.d.) separated by a 1-month washout period. Nasal challenges with allergen were performed after each treatment period. The nasal allergic response was evaluated by counting sneezes, recording symptom scores and measuring levels of albumin (an index of vascular permeability), lysozyme (an index of serous glandular secretion) and kinins (proinflammatory peptides) in recovered nasal lavages.

RESULTS

Compared with the baseline challenge, each course of beclomethasone significantly reduced sneezing, symptom scores, albumin and kinins, but not lysozyme. Reproducibility analysis of the net changes from diluent challenge in the two beclomethasone treatment periods, showed the following intraclass correlation coefficients: sneezing (0.92), lysozyme (0.82), symptom scores (0.72), albumin (0.64) and kinins (0.28).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the nasal challenge model is a reproducible method to evaluate the efficacy of anti-allergic medications. For nasal corticosteroid trials, sneezing, symptom scores and albumin levels are recommended as the most reproducibly suppressive outcome measures.

Histamine in allergic rhinitis

Histamine plays a major role in allergic rhinitis. In susceptible individuals, allergen induces nasal mast cell degranulation and the release of histamine into the nasal mucosa. Histamine has been detected after controlled challenges with allergen and, when administered into the nasal cavity, elicits signs and symptoms similar to those elicited by allergen. All four histamine receptors have been demonstrated in the nasal mucosa. The role of the four histamine receptors in the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis are discussed.

Assessment of Upper Respiratory Tract and Ocular Irritative Effects of Volatile Chemicals in Humans

Accurate assessment of upper respiratory tract and ocular irritation is critical for identifying and remedying problems related to overexposure to volatile chemicals, as well as for establishing parameters of irritation useful for regulatory purposes. This article (a) describes the basic anatomy and physiology of the human upper respiratory tract and ocular mucosae, (b) discusses how airborne chemicals induce irritative sensations, and (c) reviews practical means employed for assessing such phenomena, including psychophysical (e.g., threshold and suprathreshold perceptual measures), physiological (e.g., cardiovascular responses), electrophysiological (e.g., event-related potentials), and imaging (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging) techniques. Although traditionally animal models have been used as the first step in assessing such irritation, they are not addressed here since (a) there are numerous reviews available on this topic and (b) many rodents and rabbits are obligate nose breathers whose nasal passages differ considerably from those of humans, potentially limiting generalization of animal-based data to humans. A major goal of this compendium is to inform the reader of procedures for assessing irritation in humans and to provide information of value in the continued interpretation and development of empirical databases upon which future reasoned regulatory health decisions can be made.

Nasal ocular reflexes and eye symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic patients often complain of eye symptoms during the allergy season. A possible mechanism for these eye symptoms is a nasal ocular reflex.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate eye symptoms after nasal allergen challenge.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, 20 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were challenged in 1 nostril with antigen, and the response was monitored in both nostrils and in both eyes. Symptoms were recorded. Filter paper disks (intranasally) and Schirmer strips (intraocularly) were used for collecting secretions, which were subsequently eluted for the measurement of histamine and albumin levels. Patients were treated once topically at the site of challenge with azelastine or placebo.

RESULTS

After placebo treatment, ipsilateral nasal challenge caused nasal symptoms and an increase in secretion weights; both were blocked by treatment with azelastine. Histamine and albumin levels increased only at the site of nasal challenge. Azelastine pretreatment inhibited the increase in albumin but not histamine levels. Symptoms of itchy and watery eyes increased significantly compared with symptoms with sham challenge after nasal allergen and were blocked by azelastine use. Ocular secretion weights increased bilaterally after placebo use and were not inhibited by azelastine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal allergen challenge releases histamine at the site of the challenge, which probably initiates a nasonasal and a nasal ocular reflex. This reflex is reduced by an H1-receptor antagonist applied at the site of the challenge. The eye symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis probably arise, in part, from a naso-ocular reflex.

Intranasal corticosteroids reduce ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE: Clinical data and recent guidelines support the positive effects of intranasal corticosteroids on allergic rhinitis-associated ocular symptoms. This article reviews the epidemiology and pathophysiology of ocular allergy symptoms and efficacy, tolerability, and potenti mechanisms of action of intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of this condition.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database.

REVIEW METHODS: A search of pertinent literature identified in vitro, preclinical, and clinical data that involve intranasal corticosteroids in ocular-related studies. Searches that used epidemiology, pathophysiology, drug class and specific agents, and other appropriate search terms were conducted.

RESULTS: Ocular symptoms, common in patients with allergic rhinitis, are associated with reduced quality of life and substantial economic costs. In the conjunctival epithelium, an early, type-1 hypersensitivity reaction occurs after direct allergen exposure. Progression to late-phase response, with recurrence of symptoms and infiltration of inflammatory cells, may occur 4 to 8 hours later and appears to be dose-related. Alteration of nasal ocular reflex pathways may also contribute to ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis. Clinical data indicate that intranasal corticosteroids significantly reduce total and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with allergic rhinitis. Meta-analyses have found that oral/topical antihistamines are not superior to intranasal corticosteroids in reducing ocular allergy symptoms. Ocular adverse events from intranasal corticosteroids are rare.

CONCLUSION: Intranasal corticosteroids are effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis. Additional studies are needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the effects of intranasal corticosteroids on ocular symptoms.

Objective monitoring of nasal patency and nasal physiology in rhinitis

Nasal obstruction can be monitored objectively by measurement of nasal airflow, as evaluated by nasal peak flow, or as airways resistance/conductance as evaluated by rhinomanometry. Peak flow can be measured during inspiration or expiration. Of these measurements, nasal inspiratory peak flow is the best validated technique for home monitoring in clinical trials. The equipment is portable, relatively inexpensive, and simple to use. One disadvantage, however, is that nasal inspiratory peak flow is influenced by lower airway as well as upper airway function. Rhinomanometry is a more sensitive technique that is specific for nasal measurements. The equipment, however, requires an operator, is more expensive, and is not portable. Thus, it is applicable only for clinic visit measures in clinical trials. Measurements require patient cooperation and coordination, and not all can achieve repeatable results. Thus, this objective measure is best suited to laboratory challenge studies involving smaller numbers of selected volunteers. A nonphysiological measure of nasal patency is acoustic rhinometry. This sonic echo technique measures internal nasal luminal volume and the minimum cross-sectional area. The derivation of these measures from the reflected sound waves requires complex mathematical transformation and makes several theoretical assumptions. Despite this, however, such measures correlate well with the nasal physiological measures, and the nasal volume measures have been shown to relate well to results obtained by imaging techniques such as computed tomography scanning or magnetic resonance imaging. Like rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry is not suitable for home monitoring and can be applied only to clinic visit measures or for laboratory nasal challenge monitoring. It has advantages in being easy to use, in requiring little patient cooperation, and in providing repeatable results. In addition to nasal obstruction, allergic rhinitis is recognized to be associated with impaired mucociliary clearance and altered nasal responsiveness. Measures exist for the monitoring of these aspects of nasal dysfunction. Although measures of mucociliary clearance are simple to perform, they have a poor record of reproducibility. Their incorporation into clinical trials is thus questionable, although positive outcomes from therapeutic intervention have been reported. Measures of nasal responsiveness are at present largely confined to research studies investigating disease mechanisms in allergic and nonallergic rhinitis. The techniques are insufficiently standardized to be applied to multicenter clinical trials but could be used in limited-center studies to gain insight into the regulatory effects of different therapeutic modalities.

Lower respiratory tract complications during nasal provocation: nonspecific stimulant or specific allergen?

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an allergic inflammatory disease in which allergen exposure leads to the appearance of symptoms in sensitized individuals because of histamine liberation from nasal mucosal mast cells. Comorbidity of this disease with allergic asthma is common. Therefore, the one airway one disease theory has been put forward. Lower respiratory tract provocation tests with both nonspecific (methacholine) and specific stimulants (allergen) have yielded positive results in nonasthmatic patients with AR. However, not enough research is available to demonstrate whether there is a response in the lower respiratory tract during nasal provocation tests (NPTs) performed to evaluate only nasal airway in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the lower respiratory tract was affected as a result of NPTs with nonspecific and specific stimulants in nonasthmatic patients with AR and to determine the frequency of lower respiratory tract obstruction due to NPT with nonspecific and specific stimulants.

METHODS

Thirty-six participants were enrolled in the study between November 2005 and January 2006 (18 AR patients and 18 healthy control subjects). Patients underwent 2 sessions of NPT. The first session was performed with nasal methacholine as a nonspecific stimulant, and the second session was performed with nasal Olea europaea extract as a specific stimulant. The control group underwent only nonspecific nasal provocation with methacholine. Basal nasal opening and nasal pressures were evaluated spirometrically by rhinomanometric measurements and basal respiratory function tests in both groups before methacholine nasal provocation. Whether or not nasal provocation was achieved, spirometric measurements were performed in all patients and controls after NPTs.

RESULTS

NPTs with methacholine resulted in a similar frequency of nasal provocation in the patient and control groups (P = .63). However, the mean methacholine dose was lower in patients with AR (P = .049). There was a decrease in parameters of asthma, including the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second to forced vital capacity (P = .04), peak expiratory flow (P = .01), and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% (P = .004), as a result of NPTs with methacholine in the patient group. However, NPTs with allergen did not cause a change in lower respiratory tract obstruction criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower respiratory tract obstruction can occur after NPTs with nonspecific stimulants; therefore, tests performed with specific allergens can be regarded as safer.

Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy (AAOA) convened an expert, multidisciplinary Working Group on Allergic Rhinitis to discuss patients' self-treatment behaviors and how health care providers approach and treat the condition. PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES: Co-moderators, who were chosen by the AAOA Board of Directors, were responsible for initial agenda development and selection of presenters and participants, based on their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Each presenter performed a literature search from which a presentation was developed, portions of which were utilized in developing this review article.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that has a significant negative impact on general health, co-morbid illnesses, productivity, and quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes avoidance of allergens, immunotherapy, and/or pharmacotherapy (ie, antihistamines, decongestants, corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, anti-leukotriene agents, anticholinergics). Despite abundant treatment options, 60% of all allergic rhinitis patients in an Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America survey responded that they are "very interested" in finding a new medication and 25% are "constantly" trying different medications to find one that "works." Those who were dissatisfied also said their health care provider does not understand their allergy treatment needs and does not take their allergy symptoms seriously. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased compliance and an increased reliance on multiple agents and over-the-counter products. Furthermore, a lack of effective communication between health care provider and patient leads to poor disease control, noncompliance, and unhappiness in a significant portion of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care providers must gain a greater understanding of patient expectations to increase medication compliance and patient satisfaction and confidence.

Familial aggregation of nasal conditioning capacity

In our previous studies on nasal conditioning, we observed a large variability among individuals to condition inspired air. Although we previously investigated various physiological parameters (age, sex, nasal mucosal temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and nasal volume) that might underlie these differences, we have been unable to explain this variability. Many proteins and molecules, which are under genetic control and could affect nasal conditioning, are involved in water transport,. In this study, we hypothesized that familial factors may contribute to the differences in nasal conditioning capacity (NCC). We performed a prospective study of 47 sibling pairs. Cold dry air was delivered to the nose, and the total water gradient (TWG) was calculated to determine the NCC. We found a highly significant intraclass correlation of 0.53 (P < 0.0001) between sibling pairs for the TWG. These results suggest that there is a familial basis for nasal conditioning and a large enough genetic component to search for genes explaining the observed correlation.

The impact of comorbid atopic disease on asthma: clinical expression and treatment

Clinically, asthma and allergic rhinitis involve separate regions of the respiratory tract while representing a common underlying inflammatory syndrome. Much evidence supports an epidemiologic association between the diseases, paranasal sinus involvement in both conditions, and parallel relationship in severity and treatment outcomes. Pathophysiologic mechanisms, including immunoglobulin E (IgE)- mediated inflammation, are also shared. Blocking IgE with the recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody omalizumab demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with upper and lower airway diseases. IgE blockade, leukotriene modulation, and B-cell depletion therapy have all exhibited success in chronic inflammation, reinforcing and expanding the beneficial role of immunomodulation of global mediators.

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma system: a new classification of allergic rhinitis and nasal responsiveness

OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS

Allergic rhinitis has traditionally been classified into seasonal and perennial rhinitis. However, many subjects with dual sensitisation do not fit neatly into either category. Recently, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma workshop has proposed a new allergic rhinitis classification, into intermittent and persistent forms. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the symptomatic and secretory responsiveness of allergic rhinitis sufferers correlated well with the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma classification, compared with the traditional classification.

STUDY DESIGN

Experimental study.

METHODS

Forty subjects with allergic rhinitis and 13 normal controls underwent a unilateral nasal bradykinin challenge protocol. Symptom scores were recorded and secretion weights measured bilaterally using filter paper disks. The symptomatic and secretory responses of allergic subjects were analysed according to both the traditional and the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma classifications, and the two systems were compared.

RESULTS

For both classification systems, the two groups of allergic subjects were clearly demarcated by secretory responses. However, after classification according to the traditional system, there was a lack of clear demarcation between the groups as regards symptomatic response, whereas clear demarcation of symptomatic responses was seen after using the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In allergic rhinitis subjects, the degree of nasal responsiveness was closely related to their Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma classification. Furthermore, this classification was not compromised by the inclusion of subjects with dual sensitisation. Thus, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma classification may have advantages for future research studies on allergic rhinitis.

Changes in muscarinic cholinergic receptor expression in human peripheral blood lymphocytes in allergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

Parasympathetic nerves provide the dominant autonomic innervation of the upper and lower airways. They release acetylcholine that, activating post-junctional muscarinic receptors, causes bronchoconstriction, mucous secretion and vasodilation. Dysfunction of the upper and lower airways frequently coexist, and they appear to share key elements of pathogenesis.

OBJECTIVE

The present study has assessed the expression and pattern of cholinergic muscarinic receptor subtypes in peripheral blood lymphocytes harvested from allergic rhinitis patients with different degree of bronchial hyperresponsiveness detected by methacholine challenge test.

METHODS

Radioligand binding assay for determining the density of muscarinic cholinergic receptor subtypes; immunoblot analysis for assessing the characteristic of muscarinic cholinergic receptor subtype protein and immunocytochemical techniques for investigating the cellular localization of receptors.

RESULTS

An increased expression of M2 and M5 receptor proteins was observed in peripheral blood lymphocytes of allergic rhinitis patients in comparison with healthy control individuals. M3 receptor subtype decreased in allergic rhinitis patients with normal or mild responses to methacholine. A trend versus a return to normal value was found in moderate and severe responders. No changes of the M4 receptor subtype were found.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Increase in M2 receptor expression correlated with disease severity and bronchial hyperreactivity. Changes in muscarinic cholinergic receptor expression in allergic rhinitis underline a role of cholinergic system of immune cells in allergic airway disease.

CAPSULE SUMMARY

Studies addressed to rhinitis and asthma have identified many similarities. Our results indicate that changes in peripheral blood lymphocyte muscarinic receptor expression may reflect the cholinergic involvement into allergic airway diseases.

Experimental models for the evaluation of treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the experimental models used for the clinical evaluation of treatments for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed clinical studies and review articles were selected from the PubMed database using the following relevant keywords: allergic rhinitis in combination with efficacy, wheal and flare, nasal challenge, park, cat room, or exposure unit. Regulatory guidance documents on allergic rhinitis were also included.

STUDY SELECTION

The authors' knowledge of the field was used to limit references with emphasis on recent randomized and controlled studies. References of historical significance were also included.

RESULTS

Traditional outpatient studies are universally accepted in the evaluation of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Experimental models provide ancillary information on efficacy at different stages of treatment development. Skin histamine and allergen challenge, as well as direct nasal challenge with histamine and allergen, are often used as early steps in assessing drug efficacy. Exposure units, park settings, and cat rooms better approximate real life by drawing on the natural mode of allergen exposure and delivering the sensitizing allergen to allergic individuals in the ambient air. Park studies make use of allergens in the outdoors, whereas cat rooms and exposure units present the sensitizing allergens indoors, with the latter providing consistent predetermined allergen levels. Exposure unit and park studies are acknowledged for the determination of onset of action and are also suited to the measurement of duration of effect and other measures of efficacy. Onset and duration of effect are 2 important pharmacodynamic properties of antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids as determined by the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology workshop group.

CONCLUSIONS

All challenge models serve as important instruments in the evaluation of antiallergic medications and provide additional information to complement traditional studies.

The time course of the bilateral release of cytokines and mediators after unilateral nasal allergen challenge

BACKGROUND

Late phase reactions after allergen challenge can be understood as a correlate of the inflammatory reaction in allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

To investigate which cytokines are involved in it and to dissect direct and indirect effects of nasal allergen challenge, we performed unilateral nasal allergen provocation with the disc method in 12 seasonal allergic volunteers. Symptom scores, nasal secretions and nasal airflow were quantified. In the secretions that were collected in the early phase and for 8 h after provocation, we measured histamine, and the cytokines interleukin (IL)-1beta, IL-8, IL-4, and the natural antagonist of IL-1beta, IL-1 receptor type 1 (IL-1Ra) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA)-assays. Control challenges with diluent instead of allergen were performed in all subjects.

RESULTS

We demonstrated a bilateral increase in nasal secretion weights in the early and late phase. Histamine was significantly increased in the early and late phase in nasal secretions from both nostrils. IL-1beta increased in the late phase only, where it was also found on the unchallenged, contralateral side. Its antagonist IL-1Ra was found in very high quantities (1000-fold higher than IL-1beta) but demonstrated only marginal changes after provocation. IL-8 was increased in both nostrils early and late after challenge, whereas IL-4 was significantly elevated in the late phase.

CONCLUSIONS

We described the time course of mediator and cytokine release into nasal secretions after allergen challenge. We hypothesize that the observed indirect effects on the unchallenged, contralateral side can be at least partially attributed to neuronal reflexes.

Induction of nasal hyper-responsiveness by allergen challenge in allergic rhinitis: the role of afferent and efferent nerves

BACKGROUND

Hyper-responsiveness of nasal secretory function and volume changes are features of allergic rhinitis (AR) that are mediated in part by neural mechanisms. The finding of nasal hyper-responsiveness in subjects with AR who are currently symptomatic, but not in those who are currently out of season and asymptomatic, suggests that induction of neural reflexes in allergic subjects occurs as a result of allergic inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether allergen exposure in subjects with asymptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) may lead to induction of neural reflexes, and to investigate the components of the reflexes involved in this induction.

METHODS

Asymptomatic subjects with (out-of-season) SAR underwent a nasal bradykinin challenge, before and 24 h after preceding ipsilateral (n = 11) and contralateral (n = 11) antigen challenge. Challenges were performed and nasal secretions collected using filter paper disks, and changes in nasal minimal cross-sectional area (A(min)) were measured using acoustic rhinometry.

RESULTS

Preceding ipsilateral antigen challenge led to the induction of a contralateral secretory reflex (P = 0.01), which was absent in control experiments (P = 0.34). Ipsilateral secretion weights were also enhanced. Preceding contralateral antigen challenge also induced a contralateral secretory reflex (P = 0.03). Enhancement of the reduction in contralateral A(min) was also seen (P = 0.02). Ipsilateral responses were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen exposure in asymptomatic allergic subjects leads to induction of neural reflexes, resulting in nasal hyper-responsiveness, which persists beyond the resolution of the acute allergic response. Our data suggest that the mechanisms of allergen-induced hyper-responsiveness involve both afferent and efferent components.

Treatment of nasal inflammation decreases the ability of subjects with asthma to condition inspired air

We previously showed that individuals with seasonal allergy have a reduced ability to condition air, which was improved by nasal inflammation. We also showed that subjects with asthma have a reduced ability to condition air. Because individuals with asthma usually have inflammation in the nose, we hypothesized that treatment with an intranasal steroid would reduce nasal inflammation and further decrease nasal conditioning capacity. We performed a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover study on 20 subjects with asthma comparing the effect of treatment with intranasal budesonide for 2 weeks on nasal conditioning. Treatment with budesonide caused no significant effect on nasal conditioning as compared with placebo. When we evaluated the subgroup of nonsmoking subjects, budesonide caused a significant reduction in nasal conditioning. We speculate that nasal inflammation in nonsmoking individuals with asthma increases the conditioning capacity and reducing it with an intranasal steroid worsens the ability of the nose to condition air. In addition, smoking causes an increase in nasal conditioning capacity by non-steroid-dependent factors. These observations help us understand the pathophysiology of nasal conditioning, but do not negate the positive clinical benefits of budesonide on treating nasal inflammation.

H1-receptors: localization and role in airway physiology and in immune functions

Histamine H(1)-receptors are involved in the pathologic processes of allergy. Clinical trials of H(1)-receptor antagonists have demonstrated the efficacy of these agents in reducing the sneezing, pruritus, and rhinorrhea associated with allergic rhinitis. In the lung, H(1)-receptors mediate the bronchoconstrictive effects of histamine and increase vascular permeability, which lead to plasma exudation. H(1)-receptors are present on T cells, B cells, monocytes, and lymphocytes, and stimulation of these receptors induces pro-inflammatory effects. It has been suggested that a signal from the H(1)-receptor contributes to the antigen receptor-mediated signaling pathways that induce proliferative responses and lead to the production of cytokines and antibodies by T cells and B cells, respectively. It would appear, therefore, that the H(1)-receptor has a wider role in inflammatory processes than simply mediating the actions of histamine.

Montelukast improves symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis over a 4-week treatment period

BACKGROUND

Proinflammatory mediators such as the cysteinyl leukotrienes are important in the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, given once daily in the morning for treatment of seasonal (fall) allergic rhinitis for 4 weeks.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind trial with a placebo run-in and a 4-week treatment period. Patients (n = 1079) with a history of allergic rhinitis and a positive skin test to seasonal pollen allergens were assigned to placebo, montelukast 10 mg, or loratadine 10 mg. Symptoms were assessed with a daily diary.

RESULTS

Montelukast was more effective than placebo in improving scores for the primary endpoint of daytime nasal symptoms (P = 0.003) and the secondary endpoints of night-time, composite, and daytime eye symptoms, patient's and physician's global evaluations of allergic rhinitis, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life (P </= 0.006). The positive control loratadine also improved scores for the primary endpoint (P </= 0.001) and the majority of the secondary endpoints (P < 0.03). When analyzed by week, the treatment effect of montelukast was more persistent than loratadine over all 4 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast provided effective relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms when given once daily in the morning, showed significant and sustained improvement in symptoms of allergic rhinitis over 4 weeks of treatment, and was well-tolerated.

Allergic Rhinitis: Broader Disease Effects and Implications for Management

Allergic rhinitis is a burdensome disease for a significant part of the population in both adults and children. Poorly controlled allergic rhinitis can trigger exacerbations of asthma, sinusitis, and otitis media, diseases with which it shares common pathophysiologic elements. Consequently, early diagnosis and treatment should be a priority for patients and physicians, not only to control the symptoms of allergic rhinitis but also to improve the management of associated diseases. Several pharmacologic therapies can be considered in an armamentarium that includes antihistamines (intranasal and systemic), intranasal cromolyn, intranasal anticholinergic agents, intranasal steroids, systemic steroids, immunotherapy, and, most recently, leukotriene receptor antagonists. Often, combinations of these treatments are used to maximize control of refractory symptoms.

Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors and airway diseases

Parasympathetic nerves provide the dominant autonomic innervation of the airways. Release of acetylcholine from parasympathetic nerves activates postjunctional muscarinic receptors present on airway smooth muscle, submucosal glands, and blood vessels to cause bronchoconstriction, mucus secretion, and vasodilatation, respectively. Acetylcholine also feeds back onto prejunctional muscarinic receptors to enhance or inhibit further acetylcholine release. In asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchoconstriction and mucus secretion is increased and the airways are hyperresponsive to contractile agents. These changes are due to increased parasympathetic nerve activity. The number and function of postjunctional muscarinic receptors in the airways are unchanged in animal models of asthma. Rather, it is the supply of acetylcholine to the postjunctional cells (smooth muscle and submucosal gland) that is increased. The increase in acetylcholine release occurs because prejunctional, inhibitory M(2) muscarinic receptors on the parasympathetic nerves are dysfunctional. M(2) muscarinic receptor dysfunction and subsequent airway hyperreactivity have been demonstrated to occur in animals in response to a variety of triggers, including antigen challenge, virus infection, ozone exposure, and vitamin A deficiency. In humans, there is evidence that loss of M(2) muscarinic receptor function is related to asthma. The mechanisms by which neuronal M(2) muscarinic receptor function is lost and its relevance to human airway disease are discussed in this review.

Effects of intranasal azelastine on the response to nasal allergen challenge

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Azelastine, a second-generation H1-receptor antagonist, is available for topical administration. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of topical intranasal azelastine on the early-phase and the late-phase allergic responses and on nasal hyper-responsiveness to methacholine.

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study in 20 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis, out of their allergy season.

METHODS

Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or two puffs of azelastine twice a day (548 microg/d) for 2 weeks followed by nasal challenge with allergen. Twenty-four hours later, while still receiving treatment, subjects underwent a nasal lavage and a nasal challenge with methacholine. End points included symptom scores, levels of mediators and number of eosinophils in nasal lavages, and the weight of secretions after methacholine challenge.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, treatment with intranasal azelastine resulted in significant reductions in allergen-induced sneezing, rhinorrhea, itching, nasal congestion, and levels of albumin during the early-phase response (P <.05). Azelastine had no effect on levels of histamine or tryptase during the early-phase response. There was a significant eosinophil influx 24 hours after challenge, which was not inhibited by azelastine. Treatment with azelastine had no effect on the levels of albumin, interleukin-4, interleukin-5, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and eosinophil cationic protein during the late-phase response. However, azelastine did show a significant inhibitory effect on the methacholine response 24 hours after nasal allergen challenge (P <.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of intranasal azelastine are similar to those of oral second-generation antihistamines.

The nasal passage of subjects with asthma has a decreased ability to warm and humidify inspired air

We previously showed that individuals with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) had a reduced ability to condition air, which was improved by inflammation. We hypothesized that individuals with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) would condition air like SAR with inflammation. Because individuals with asthma usually have inflammation in the nose, we hypothesized that they would condition air like individuals with PAR. We performed a prospective, parallel study on 15 normal subjects, 15 subjects with SAR outside their allergy season, 15 subjects with PAR, and 15 subjects with asthma. Cold, dry air (CDA) was delivered to the nose and the temperature and humidity of the air were measured before entering and after exiting the nasal cavity. The total water gradient (TWG) was calculated and represents the nasal conditioning capacity. The TWG in the SAR group was significantly lower than that in normal subjects. There were no significant differences in TWG between the PAR and normal groups. Subjects with asthma had a significantly lower TWG than did normal subjects. There was a significant negative correlation between TWG and Aas score in the group with asthma (r(s) = -0.8, p = 0.0007). Our data show that subjects with asthma have a reduced ability of the nose to condition CDA compared with normal subjects, but which is similar to SAR out of season.

Antiallergic effects of H1-receptor antagonists

The primary mechanism of antihistamine action in the treatment of allergic diseases is believed to be competitive antagonism of histamine binding to cellular receptors (specifically, the H1-receptors), which are present on nerve endings, smooth muscles, and glandular cells. This notion is supported by the fact that structurally unrelated drugs antagonize the H1-receptor and provide clinical benefit. However, H1-receptor antagonism may not be their sole mechanism of action in treating allergic rhinitis. On the basis of in vitro and animal experiments, drugs classified as H1-receptor antagonists have long been recognized to have additional pharmacological properties. Most first-generation H1-antihistamines have anticholinergic, sedative, local anaesthetic, and anti-5-HT effects, which might favourably affect the symptoms of the allergic response but also contribute to side-effects. These additional properties are not uniformly distributed among drugs classified as H1-receptor antagonists. Azatadine, for example, inhibits in vitro IgE-mediated histamine and leukotriene (LT) release from mast cells and basophils. In human challenge models, terfenadine, azatadine, and loratadine reduce IgE-mediated histamine release. Cetirizine reduces eosinophilic infiltration at the site of antigen challenge in the skin, but not the nose. In a nasal antigen challenge model, cetirizine pretreatment did not affect the levels of histamine and prostaglandin D2 recovered in postchallenge lavages, whereas the levels of albumin, N-tosyl-L-arginine methyl ester (TAME) esterase activity, and LTs were reduced. Terfenadine, cetirizine, and loratadine blocked allergen-induced hyperresponsiveness to methacholine. In view of the complexity of the pathophysiology of allergy, a number of H1 antagonists with additional properties are currently under development for allergic diseases. Mizolastine, a new H1-receptor antagonist, has been shown to have additional actions that should help reduce the allergic response. In animal models, mizolastine inhibits antigen-induced eosinophil infiltration into mouse skin and into the nasal cavity of guinea-pigs. Mizolastine also significantly inhibits antigen-induced neutrophil infiltration into the bronchoalveolar lavage fluids of guinea-pigs. In addition, it inhibits arachidonic acid-induced paw oedema in rats without affecting carrageenin-induced rat paw oedema, suggesting an effect on LT generation. In man, mizolastine inhibits early and late antigen-induced soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) levels in skin blisters. It also inhibits anaphylactic release of histamine from rodent mast cells, LTC4 and LTB4 release from mouse bone-marrow-derived mast cells, LTC4 release from rat intestinal mast cells, and 5-lipoxygenase activity of polymorphonuclear neutrophils of guinea-pig intestines and rat basophilic leukaemia cells. It is clear that a number of H1-antihistamines have multiple effects on the allergic inflammatory response. It is equally clear that these antiallergic effects are not uniformly shared among all drugs of this class. The assessment of the clinical significance of these results and research regarding the parts of the molecules responsible for these activities are underway.

Nasal provocation testing: a review

OBJECTIVE

This review focuses on the uses of nasal provocation testing (NPT) for scientific investigations of the mechanisms of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis. It also describes the use of NPT as a diagnostic tool in clinical practice. The indications, contraindications, advantages, and limitations of different techniques for evaluation of nasal responses are reviewed. The paper familiarizes investigators with particulars of different nasal delivery systems, provocation agents, nasal patency measurements, secretion collection, and nasal lavage techniques.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant publications obtained from a literature review.

STUDY SELECTION

Relevant publications on the topics of NPT, allergic, and nonallergic rhinitis were critically evaluated.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

To date, NPT has been used primarily as a research tool for the investigation of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis with a wide variety of techniques depending on the specific scientific purposes. NPT will continue to provide useful information about the pathogenesis of airway diseases. Standardized nasal provocation testing has the potential to become a more frequently used clinical test in the diagnosis of allergic and occupational rhinitis and for determination of the appropriate and focused therapy.

Comparison of the response to histamine challenge of the nose and the maxillary sinus: effect of loratadine

To study the response of the maxillary sinus to histamine provocation, we performed a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial during which nonallergic subjects without symptoms of rhinitis (n = 25) received either 10 mg loratadine or placebo once daily for a week and then underwent nasal challenge with histamine (3, 10, and 30 mg/ml) followed, 24 h later, by a maxillary sinus challenge while still receiving the medication. Nasal challenge with histamine led to significant increases in vascular permeability, reflex nasal secretions, sneezing, and other nasal symptoms. Sinus challenge resulted in significant increases in vascular permeability within the sinus cavity (P < 0.01) and some nasal symptoms but no significant change in reflex nasal secretions. The response of the sinus mucosa to histamine was lower in magnitude than that of the nose. Treatment with loratadine resulted in a significant inhibition of the histamine-induced changes in both nasal and sinus cavities. Our data suggest the lack of a sinonasal reflex response to histamine provocation of the maxillary sinus of nonallergic individuals.

Histamine and tryptase in nasal lavage fluid after allergen challenge: effect of 1 week of pretreatment with intranasal azelastine or systemic cetirizine

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) act by competitive antagonism of histamine at H1-receptors. In addition, high concentrations of some antihistamines inhibit allergen-induced histamine release from mast cells in vitro.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of intranasal azelastine or systemic cetirizine (both potent antihistamines) on the allergen-induced release of mast-cell mediators from the human nasal mucosa in vivo.

METHODS

Patients allergic to birch pollen (n = 11) and control subjects not allergic to birch pollen (n = 5) were included in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-way crossover study outside the pollen season. Each subject was treated with azelastine nasal spray 0.14 mg per nostril twice daily, cetirizine tablets 10 mg every day, or placebo for 1 week using a double-dummy design. At the end of each treatment period, nasal allergen challenges were performed, and the number of sneezes were counted. In addition, nasal lavage fluid was collected, and the levels of mast-cell mediators (histamine and tryptase) were measured.

RESULTS

The allergen challenge of patients allergic to pollen produced sneezing and a significant increase in the levels of histamine and tryptase. The challenge of subjects not allergic to pollen produced no such response. Azelastine and cetirizine significantly reduced allergen-induced sneezing and the associated increase in histamine and tryptase levels. No significant differences were found between the azelastine and cetirizine treatments.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with azelastine or cetirizine inhibits the allergen-induced release of mast-cell mediators from the human nasal mucosa. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that both antihistamines reduce mediator release from nasal mucosa mast cells in vivo. However, further studies are necessary to test this hypothesis.

Nasal challenge with histamine decreases nonspecific bronchial reactivity in workers exposed to respiratory irritants

BACKGROUND

A link ("naso-bronchial reflex") between nasal and bronchial reactivity seems to exist. The effect of nonspecific nasal challenge (standing for the exposure to irritative stimuli at the workplace) on lung function indices and nonspecific bronchial reactivity is not known.

METHODS

In 80 healthy workers (age: 36.0 +/- 8.6 years) continuously exposed to acceptable levels of different respiratory irritants (for more than 2 years) nasal challenge was performed by spraying doubling concentrations of histamine (0.0625-16.0 mg/mL, doses of histamine: 7.8 micrograms-2.08 mg) into each nostril. Before and immediately after nasal challenge spirometry and the bronchoprovocation test with histamine (0.5-128 mg/mL) was performed.

RESULTS

Although nasal challenge with histamine had not reduced airway caliber (before nasal challenge vs. following nasal challenge: FEV1 3.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.7 +/- 0.8 L, and MEF50 4.3 +/- 1.4 vs. 4.3 +/- 1.4 L/s, mean +/- SD, respectively), it had significantly reduced nonspecific bronchial reactivity in 30.2% of the irritant-exposed subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal challenge with histamine decreases nonspecific bronchial reactivity in workers occupationally exposed to respiratory irritants. Thus, a methodological implication would be that these two tests should not be performed consecutively in less than 2 hr in the same subjects.

Hyperosmolar saline induces reflex nasal secretions, evincing neural hyperresponsiveness in allergic rhinitis

We investigated whether hyperosmolar saline (HS), applied via paper disk onto the septum of one nostril, induces a nasal secretory response. Furthermore, we examined whether this response is accentuated in patients with active allergic rhinitis (AR) compared with healthy volunteers. Unilateral HS produced significant nasal secretions both ipsilateral and contralateral to the site of challenge in the AR group and only ipsilaterally in the healthy group. The HS-induced nasal secretions were significantly greater in the AR vs. the healthy subjects. In a separate study, we ascertained that the nasal response to HS is neurally mediated and found that ipsilateral nerve blockade with lidocaine significantly attenuates the HS-induced secretions bilaterally. In another group of AR subjects, we determined whether nociceptive fibers were involved in this response and found that sensory nerve desensitization with repeated application of capsaicin attenuated the HS-induced nasal secretions. Finally, we determined whether the secretory hyperresponsiveness in AR is attributable to increased reactivity of submucosal glands rather than of nerves. We found that the dose response to methacholine, which directly stimulates the glands, was identical among AR and healthy subjects. We conclude that, in AR, nasal challenge with HS induces significantly greater reflex secretions involving capsaicin-sensitive nerve fibers, consistent with the notion of neural hyperresponsiveness in this disease.

Relationship between histamine and physiological changes during the early response to nasal antigen provocation

To investigate the temporal relationships of mediator release and physiological changes during the early response to allergen, we challenged allergic individuals intranasally with antigen and followed their responses. This was done by using small filter paper disks to challenge one nostril and collect secretions from both the challenged and the contralateral nostril, thus enabling us to evaluate the nasonasal reflex. There was a significant increase in sneezing after allergen challenge that peaked within 2 min and returned to baseline. The weights of nasal secretions as well as nasal symptoms increased immediately and remained significantly elevated for 20 min in both nostrils. Nasal airway resistance increased slowly, reaching its peak at approximately 6 min after challenge on the ipsilateral side, but it did not change on the contralateral side. Histamine levels peaked 30 s after removal of the allergen disk on the side of challenge, whereas albumin levels peaked after those of histamine. Lactoferrin paralleled the increase in secretion weights and occurred in both nostrils. Increasing doses of antigen produced dose-dependent increases in all parameters, whereas control challenges produced no response. These studies describe a human model for the evaluation of the allergic response that is capable of simultaneously measuring mediator release and the physiological response, including the nasonasal reflex. This model should prove useful in studying the mechanism of allergic rhinitis in humans.

Ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.03% provides additional relief from rhinorrhea when combined with terfenadine in perennial rhinitis patients; a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial

Medical treatment of perennial rhinitis is aimed at providing symptomatic relief of individual symptoms. Multiple agents are administered when no single agent provides complete relief. Studies assessing the benefit/risk of combined therapy are important, especially for newly available agents such as ipratropium bromide nasal spray, a topical anticholinergic agent approved for the treatment of rhinorrhea in allergic and nonallergic perennial rhinitis. The objective was to determine whether the combined use of ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.03% (42 mcg per nostril) administered three times daily with a nonsedating antihistamine (terfenadine, 60 mg administered twice daily) is safe and provides greater clinical benefit than use of the placebo nasal spray plus terfenadine. Our method was a multicenter, 6-week, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, crossover trial of 205 patients with perennial rhinitis (114 allergic and 91 nonallergic), 18 to 75 years of age, who had clinically significant rhinorrhea. After a 1-week run-in period, patients were treated for 2 weeks with one of the two treatment regimens, followed by a 1-week washout period, and then were treated for another 2 weeks with the other treatment regimen. Daily diary symptoms scores of rhinorrhea, congestion, and sneezing were obtained, as well as biweekly patient and physician global assessments of treatment effectiveness of each of the nasal symptoms. Ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine was more effective than vehicle plus terfenadine in reducing the average severity (38% versus 28%) and duration (46% versus 30%) of rhinorrhea during the 2 weeks of treatment from baseline (p < 0.05). The advantage of ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine was evident by the second day of treatment and continued throughout the 2-week treatment period. Of patients who responded more to one treatment than another, 69% responded to ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine, compared to 31% to vehicle plus terfenadine (p < 0.05). Both physicians and patients rated control of rhinorrhea and sneezing by ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine as superior to vehicle plus terfenadine (p < 0.05). The symptom of congestion was controlled equally well by both treatments. Combined active therapy was well tolerated with no increase in adverse events over that seen previously with ipratropium bromide nasal spray alone. The combination of ipratropium bromide nasal spray with terfenadine is more effective than vehicle plus terfenadine for the treatment of rhinorrhea, and does not result in a potentiation of adverse drug reactions.

Diagnosis and management of rhinitis: complete guidelines of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology

This document contains complete guidelines for diagnosis and management of rhinitis developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The guidelines are comprehensive and begin with statements on clinical characteristics and diagnosis of different forms of rhinitis (allergic, non-allergic, occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis [pregnancy and hypothyroidism], drug-induced rhinitis, rhinitis from food ingestion), and other conditions that may be confused with rhinitis. Recommendations on patient evaluation discuss appropriate use of history, physical examination, and diagnostic testing, as well as unproven or inappropriate techniques that should not be used. Parameters on management include use of environmental control measures, pharmacologic therapy including recently introduced therapies and allergen immunotherapy. Because of the risks to patients and society from sedation and performance impairment caused by first generation antihistamines, second generation antihistamines that reduce or eliminate these side effects should usually be considered before first generation antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The document emphasizes the importance of rhinitis management for comorbid conditions (asthma, sinusitis, otitis media). Guidelines are also presented on special considerations in patients subsets (children, the elderly, pregnancy, athletes and patients with rhinitis medicamentosa); and when consultation with an allergist-immunologist should be considered.

Intranasal beclomethasone reduces allergen-induced symptoms and superficial mucosal eosinophilia without affecting submucosal inflammation

Previous investigations have suggested that nasal secretions, obtained by lavage or scraping, and the nasal submucosa, sampled by biopsy, are two distinct compartments. We investigated the effect of intranasal corticosteroids on antigen-induced eosinophil influx into both compartments. We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 15 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Beclomethasone dipropionate, 84 microg twice a day, was delivered to one nostril while the other nostril received placebo for 1 wk. Subjects were then challenged with grass or ragweed extracts on each inferior turbinate. Nasal scrapings from both inferior turbinates were obtained before and 24 h after challenge, and bilateral inferior turbinate biopsies were obtained 24 h after challenge, with the subjects still receiving treatment. Intranasal steroids led to a significant reduction in sneezes and eosinophil influx in nasal secretions without affecting the number of eosinophils in the submucosa. Furthermore, intranasal steroids had no effect on the numbers of submucosal EG2+ (activated eosinophils) or CD25+ (IL-2-receptor-bearing) cells, nor did they decrease the endothelial expression of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1). These data show that pretreatment with intranasal steroids successfully inhibited the clinical response to allergen and reduced eosinophils in the superficial compartment of the nasal mucosa, but it had no effect on inflammation in the deeper compartment. This might be related to a different distribution of the active medication and antigen into the nasal mucosa or to a specific effect of the active medication on the epithelium resulting in inhibited migration of eosinophils across this layer.

Histamine and tryptase in nasal lavage fluid following challenge with methacholine and allergen

BACKGROUND

The level of histamine in nasal lavage fluid has been used as an index of mast cell/basophil activation in a number of studies. Obviously, such an index can only be valid if changes in the secretory activity of nasal glands do not affect the level of histamine in lavage fluid (i.e. hypersecretion, without a simultaneous activation of mast cells/basophils in the nasal mucosa, must not increase the level of histamine).

OBJECTIVES

To asses the effect of nasal hypersecretion on histamine levels in lavage fluid.

METHODS

Nasal challenges were performed with methacholine and allergen in grass pollen-allergic patients and non-allergic controls. Nasal lavage fluid was collected before and repeatedly for nine hours after nasal challenge, and the level of histamine was compared with that of a specific mast cell-derived enzyme, tryptase. In addition, the effect of methacholine on basophils was examined in vitro.

RESULTS

Allergen challenge of allergic patients produced sneezing and a significant increase in histamine and tryptase levels, whereas challenge of non-allergic subjects produced no such response. Interestingly, challenge with methacholine also induced a significant increase in histamine levels. This increase was seen in both allergic and non-allergic subjects and it was not associated with any sneezing or increase in tryptase levels, indicating that mast cells were not activated. Furthermore, stimulation of basophils with methacholine did not induce any histamine release in vitro.

CONCLUSIONS

Apparently, there exists a pool of histamine in the human nose that can be transferred to lavage fluid during glandular hypersecretion. The source of this histamine is yet to be identified. As the level of histamine seems to be affected by the secretory activity of nasal glands, we question the use of this single mediator as an index of mast cell/basophil activation in nasal lavage studies.