Nasal hyperreactivity to methacholine measured by acoustic rhinometry in asymptomatic allergic and perennial nonallergic rhinitis

Usefulness of Biomarkers in Work-Related Airway Disease

Determination of biomarkers may be useful in the surveillance of occupational exposure and workers' health. The possibility of predicting development/clinical course of specific disorders or current disease, diagnosing in early steps, and health condition monitoring is a real necessity. Various agents present in the workplace environment (or their metabolites) can be measured in samples possessed from human body (blood and urine, saliva, etc.). On the other hand, inhalant exposure may induce specific or non-specific, local or systemic, acute or chronic biological response expressed by synthesis or releasing specific or non-specific substances/mediators that also can be determined in blood, nasal and bronchial lavage or sputum, tear fluid, exhaled breath, etc. The least is known about genetic markers which may predict individual susceptibility to develop some work-related disorders under the influence of occupational exposure. Due to common exposure to inhalant agents at workplace, researches on biomarkers that allow to inspect the impact of exposure to humans' health are still needed. The authors of this article summarize the utility of biomarkers' determination in work-related airway diseases in a recent clinical approach.

Specific Nasal Provocation Test with Dermatophagoides Pteronyssinus, Monitored by Acoustic Rhinometry, in Children with Rhinitis

Background

Currently, the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR) is arrived at predominantly by a clinical history and by systemic sensitization tests, but specific nasal provocation tests (NPT) may establish a better direct correlation between etiologic surveyed allergens and nasal symptoms.

Objectives

To standardize the specific NPT with one of the most important house-dust mites, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, monitored by acoustic rhinometry, in children and adolescents, and propose a simplified specific NPT to improve its clinical applicability as a diagnostic tool.

Methods

Sixteen controls (group 1) and 17 patients with an AR diagnosis sensitized to D. pteronyssinus (group 2) underwent a specific NPT with D. pteronyssinus. The acoustic rhinometry was performed after instillation of 0.15 mL of increasing concentrations of D. pteronyssinus (5000 BU/mL). The test was finalized after (1) instillation of the final concentration of D. pteronyssinus, or (2) after a 20% or more reduction in the volume of the first 5 cm of the nasal cavity (V5), or (3) a score of >3 in the symptoms questionnaire (a score from 0 to 7). A simplified specific NPT with two concentrations was proposed and implemented in a group of 10 patients with AR (group 3).

Results

At the end of the specific NPT, the median (range) variation in V5 was -5.7% (-9 to 4%) in the control group and -22.8% (-24 to -20%) in group 2. None of the patients in the control group and 88% of group 2 (15/17) showed positive specific NPT results. The simplified specific NPT triggered a positive response in 80% of patients in group 3, with median (range) V5 variation of -30.4% (-36 to -20%).

Conclusion

This protocol has been proven safe and useful to differentiate between children and adolescents with AR and controls. Concentrations of 1:1000 and 1:100 D. pteronyssinus were the best for use in simplified specific NPT, which made it simpler and faster, and expanded its clinical applicability.

Response to Nonallergenic Irritants in Children With Allergic and Nonallergic Rhinitis

Purpose

Nonallergenic irritants can aggravate the symptoms of rhinitis. We investigated the clinical responses of children with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) to nonallergenic irritants, and identified factors associated with these responses.

Methods

Children with chronic rhinitis (n=208) were classified as having AR or NAR based on the presence of aeroallergen-specific IgE. Healthy controls (n=24) were recruited for comparison. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines were used to classify patients, and their irritant score (0-21 points) and current symptom score (5-35 points) were measured. Subjects with irritant scores ≥3 and <3 were classified as having irritant and nonirritant rhinitis, respectively.

Results

The mean age of enrolled subjects was 6.8 years (range: 1.8-16.0 years). The AR and NAR groups had similar irritant scores (P=0.394) and proportions of subjects with irritant scores ≥3 (P=0.105). Irritant score correlated positively with symptom score (P=0.005), and the proportion of subjects with irritant scores ≥3 was greater in children with moderate-severe rhinitis than in those with mild rhinitis (P=0.046). Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that the presence of atopic eczema increased the risk for sensitivity to a nonallergenic irritant (aOR=2.928, 95% CI 1.567-5.473, P=0.001).

Conclusions

Response to a nonallergenic irritant was useful for gauging the severity of rhinitis, but not for differentiating AR from NAR. AR and NAR patients with atopic eczema may increase nasal sensitivity to nonallergenic irritants.

Nasal hyper-reactivity is a common feature in both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Nasal hyper-reactivity is an increased sensitivity of the nasal mucosa to various nonspecific stimuli. Both allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) patients can elicit nasal hyper-reactivity symptoms. Differences in the prevalence or type of nasal hyper-reactivity in AR and NAR patients are largely unknown. In this study, we quantitatively and qualitatively assessed nasal hyper-reactivity in AR and NAR.

METHODS

In the first part, an analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed to reveal patient-reported symptoms of hyper-reactivity. In the second part, cold dry air provocation (CDA) was performed as a hyper-reactivity measure in AR and NAR patients and healthy controls, and symptoms scores, nasal secretions and peak nasal inspiratory flow were measured. Comparisons were made between AR and NAR patients in both studies.

RESULTS

The database analysis revealed high hyper-reactivity prevalence in AR (63.4%) and NAR (66.9%). There were no differences between AR and NAR in terms of the number or type of hyper-reactivity stimuli. Hyper-reactivity to physical stimuli did not exclude a response to chemical stimuli, or vice versa. CDA provocation resulted in a significant increase in rhinitis symptoms and the amount of nasal secretions in AR and NAR patients, but not in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no quantitative or qualitative differences in nasal hyper-reactivity between AR and NAR patients. It is not possible to differentiate NAR subpopulations based on physical or chemical stimuli.

Nasal Physiological Reactivity of Subjects with Nonallergic Rhinitis to Cold Air Provocation: A Pilot Comparison of Subgroups

Background

Noninfectious nonallergic rhinitis (NINAR) is characterized by self-reported hyperreactivity to nonspecific physical or chemical stimuli. The relationship between these two classes of triggers is not well established, however. We compared NINAR subjects with predominantly physical or chemical triggers versus normal controls with respect to subjective (symptomatic) and objective (obstructive) responses to cold, dry air challenge.

Methods

We studied 14 NINAR subjects and 10 normal controls. Exposures consisted of 15 minutes of cold dry air (0°C/5% RH) or warm moist air (25°C/50% RH) on two separate days a week apart. Subjects rated symptoms using visual analog scales and had their nasal airway resistance measured at baseline, immediately after, and at 15-minute intervals for 1 hour postexposure.

Results

The majority of NINAR subjects reported physical triggers as more troublesome than chemical. Immediately postprovocation, the mean net proportional change in nasal airway resistance from baseline was +0.18 in NINAR (physical), +0.05 in NINAR (chemical), and –0.01 in control subjects (NS). However, a pooled linear regression by number of physical triggers (0–5) revealed a 7.5% increase in cold air–induced nasal airway resistance per trigger reported (p < 0.05). Similarly, raising the criterion number of physical triggers from ≥1 to ≥2 also distinguished NINAR subjects from controls in a bivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Either considering self-reported physical triggers as a continuous scale (0–5) or requiring more physical triggers (≥ 2 rather than ≥1) to define NINAR successfully predicts objective nasal reactivity to cold air provocation.

When allergic rhinitis is not only allergic

BACKGROUND

In clinical practice it can be observed that some patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR) continue to have symptoms even when the exposure to allergens is expected to be low or absent. We studied the clinical and cytological characteristics of these atypical forms of (AR) in a large population of patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with symptoms of rhinitis and with positive skin test to pollens only were interviewed for the duration of symptoms, correlation with sensitization pattern, and presence of reactivity to nonspecific stimuli. All underwent rhinoscopy and nasal scraping for cytology.

RESULTS

Five hundred nineteen patients with AR were studied. Of these 519 patients 60 (11.5%) had an atypical or mixed form of rhinitis, with symptoms independent of the exposure and also elicited by nonspecific stimuli. These patients clearly differed from typical forms, especially for the nasal inflammation. They had a greater number of eosinophils and mast cells out of season (p < 0.05). Moreover, these atypical forms had, more frequently, asthma and eosinophilic polyps.

CONCLUSION

In approximately 12% of patients with AR, other mechanisms of inflammation seem to intervene. Nasal cytology can be helpful in discriminating these atypical forms.

EAACI position paper on occupational rhinitis

The present document is the result of a consensus reached by a panel of experts from European and non-European countries on Occupational Rhinitis (OR), a disease of emerging relevance which has received little attention in comparison to occupational asthma. The document covers the main items of OR including epidemiology, diagnosis, management, socio-economic impact, preventive strategies and medicolegal issues. An operational definition and classification of OR tailored on that of occupational asthma, as well as a diagnostic algorithm based on steps allowing for different levels of diagnostic evidence are proposed. The needs for future research are pointed out. Key messages are issued for each item.

Occupational rhinitis

The present document is the result of a consensus reached by a panel of experts from European and nonEuropean countries on Occupational Rhinitis (OR), a disease of emerging relevance, which has received little attention in comparison to occupational asthma. The document covers the main items of OR including epidemiology, diagnosis, management, socio-economic impact, preventive strategies and medicolegal issues. An operational definition and classification of OR tailored to that of occupational asthma, as well as a diagnostic algorithm based on steps allowing different levels of diagnostic evidence, are proposed. The needs for future research are pointed out. Key messages are issued for each item.

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.

Subjects with non-allergic non-infectious perennial rhinitis do not show nasal hyper-responsiveness to bradykinin

Symptoms in non-allergic non-infectious perennial rhinitis (NANIPER) are characteristically trigged by non-specific irritants. Hyper-responsiveness to cold dry air has been demonstrated in NANIPER. Bradykinin is a peptide involved in allergic inflammation. Neurally mediated hyper-responsiveness to bradykinin has been demonstrated in allergic rhinitis. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether hyper-responsiveness to bradykinin is present in NANIPER. Normal subjects (n = 13) and subjects with NANIPER (n = 10) were subjected to a nasal bradykinin challenge protocol. Secretory responses were measured using filter paper disks, and congestive responses measured using acoustic rhinometry. Compared to normal subjects, with NANIPER had a greater secretory response to control challenge with Hartman's solution. On the other hand, the normal ipsilateral secretory and congestive response to bradykinin was absent in NANIPER. Subjects with NANIPER did not demonstrate any evidence of reflex responses to bradykinin, and no evidence of nasal hyper-responsiveness to bradykinin. Hyper-responsiveness to bradykinin is absent in NANIPER. These results suggest that autonomic hyporesponsiveness rather than neural hyper-responsiveness may be an important factor in the etiology of NANIPER.

Acoustic rhinometry: should we be using it?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to examine the role of acoustic rhinometry in clinical practice. Although acoustic rhinometry was first described for clinical use in 1989, it is not in common use today. Should we be using it? Yes. I think we should be using it more often. This review provides an update of the new standard for interpretation and expanded clinical uses.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most significant advances in the past year in this area have been the publication of standards for its clinical use. In addition, the repertoire of clinical problems that can be analyzed objectively with acoustic rhinometry has expanded to include turbinoplasty, sleep disorders, more types of cosmetic/reconstructive procedures, sinus surgery, vasomotor rhinitis, maxillofacial expansion procedures, and aspirin and methacholine challenge. (Its ability for pediatric disorders, such as adenoidectomy, has been reaffirmed.) Some case examples are included to demonstrate the utility of acoustic rhinometry for 'mixed' pathology.

SUMMARY

Acoustic rhinometry is a rapid, objective, painless, noninvasive technique for assessing nasal airway obstruction. Recently, standards have been developed that aid its expansion for clinical use. Expanded clinical applications include sleep disorders, cosmetic/reconstructive and maxillofacial disorders, sinus and turbinate procedures, and pediatrics. Acoustic rhinometry should be utilized to improve our ability to practice evidence-based medicine in rhinology.

Acoustic rhinometry and its uses in rhinology and diagnosis of nasal obstruction

Acoustic rhinometry is a tool that can aid in the assessment of nasal obstruction. The test is noninvasive, reliable, convenient, and easy to perform. Common clinical and practical uses of acoustic rhinometry for the rhinologic surgeon include assessment of"mixed" nasal blockage, documentation of nasal alar collapse, and preoperative planning for reduction rhinoplasty. Acoustic rhinometry can also be used to document the positive effect of surgery on nasal airway obstruction.

Nasal mucosal histamine reactivity among young students and teachers, having no or prolonged exposure to a deteriorated indoor climate

BACKGROUND

In a study performed in the spring of 1995, we found a significantly greater nasal mucosal histamine reactivity among teachers, who had worked for several years in a recently renovated moisture-damaged school, than in those in a control school. In the present study we investigated the students who begun their high-school studies at both schools in the autumn of 1995 and compared them with the teachers as regards mucosal reactivity, atopy and symptoms.

METHODS

Twenty-eight teachers in the target school, 18 teachers in the control school and 45 students from each school underwent a nasal histamine provocation test and a skin-prick test. They also answered a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

The teachers in both schools had more marked nasal mucosal histamine reactivity at the lowest provocation concentrations than the students. The histamine provocation curve of the target school teachers had consistently higher values than that of the students (P = 0.0001), but its slope and shape were similar (P = 0.15), while the slope of the provocation curve of the control school teachers was flatter. However, there was only a borderline significance in this respect compared to the students (P = 0.07). Teachers with a dry and crusty appearance of the nasal mucosa on anterior rhinoscopy reacted more strongly to histamine provocation than those without this finding (P = 0.0004). There was a significantly higher frequency of skin-prick test positivity (SPT+) among the students (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in nasal mucosal histamine reactivity between atopic and non-atopic subjects out of pollen season.

CONCLUSIONS

Teachers had a significantly greater mucosal histamine reactivity than the students, whereas the latter had a significantly higher frequency of atopy. These results are compatible with an age-related pattern of mucosal reactivity. A crusty appearance of the nasal mucosa seems to predispose to an increase in histamine reactivity. There were no significant differences according to histamine reactivity between atopic and non-atopic subjects.