Endoscopic and Radiologic Central Compartment Disease as Predictors of Perennial Inhalant Allergen Sensitization in Chronic Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Central compartment atopic disease (CCAD) is a recently described variant of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) strongly associated with atopy. The association between central compartment disease (CCD) and inhalant allergy is not well established in South-East Asia, where perennial allergic rhinitis is common.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate endoscopic and radiologic CCD as predictors of perennial allergen sensitization in primary CRS. The secondary objective was to compare clinical characteristics of CCAD with other CRS subtypes (CRSwNP and CRSsNP).

METHODS

A retrospective study of consecutive patients with primary CRS who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery at our institution was performed. Allergen sensitization was confirmed by skin or serum testing. Endoscopy records and computed tomography scans of paranasal sinuses were reviewed for CCD. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic and radiologic CCD in predicting atopy was calculated.

RESULTS

There were 104 patients (43 CCAD, 30 CRSwNP and 31 CRSsNP). Endoscopic CCD was significantly associated with aeroallergen sensitization (odds ratio (OR) 3.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.65-9.67, P = 0.002). Endoscopic CCD predicted atopy with 57% sensitivity, 72% specificity, 69% positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio of 2.05. Radiologic CCD was not associated with aeroallergen sensitization (OR 0.728, 95%CI 0.292-1.82, P = 0.496). There were more CCAD patients who reported hyposmia (86% vs 42%, P < 0.001) and had anosmia on olfactory testing than CRSsNP (65% vs 14%, P = 0.015). The prevalence of atopy was significantly higher in CCAD than CRSwNP and CRSsNP (70% vs 37% and 42%, P = 0.015 and P = 0.05, respectively). Median serum total immunoglobulin E was higher in CCAD (283 IU/ml) and CRSwNP (127 IU/ml) than CRSsNP (27 IU/ml, P = 0.006 and P = 0.042, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic CCD was a better predictor of inhalant allergy than radiologic CCD in primary CRS, in a locale of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Plain Language Summary: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

The plain language summary explains allergen immunotherapy to patients, families, and caregivers. The summary is for patients aged 5 years and older who are experiencing symptoms from inhalant allergies and are considering immunotherapy as a treatment option. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for health care providers. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Bacterial colonization differences between central compartment atopic disease and eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis

KEY POINTS

Culturable bacterial colonization is similar between type 2 CRS phenotypes Staphylococcus aureus coinfection is similar between eosinophilic CRS and CCAD Patients with CCAD were younger, consistent with current knowledge of the disease.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

CCAD or eCRS: Defining Eosinophilic Subpopulations in Chronic Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Central compartment atopic disease (CCAD) and eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (eCRS) are two clinical phenotypes of primary diffuse type 2 chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) defined in the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis 2020 classification. Currently, the distinction between these subtypes relies on phenotypic features alone.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether eosinophil activation differed between CCAD and eCRS.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted of adult patients presenting with CCAD and eCRS who had undergone functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Routine pathology results were obtained from clinical records. Eosinophils were counted on haematoxylin and eosin-stained formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sinonasal tissue. Eotaxin-3, eosinophil peroxidase and immunoglobulin E levels were assessed using immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

38 participants were included (51.7 ± 15.6 years, 47.4% female), of whom 36.8% were diagnosed with CCAD and 63.2% with eCRS. The eCRS group was characterised by older age (55.8 ± 16.3 vs 44.5 ± 11.8 years, p = 0.029), and on histology exhibited a higher degree of tissue inflammation (τ_b = 0.409, p = 0.011), greater proportion of patients with >100 eosinophils/high power field (87.5% vs 50%, p = 0.011), and higher absolute tissue eosinophil count (2141 ± 1947 vs 746 ± 519 cells/mm², p = 0.013). Eotaxin-3 scores were higher in the eCRS group (5.00[5.00-6.00] vs 6.00[6.00-6.75], p = 0.015). Other outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Eosinophil and eotaxin-3 levels were elevated in eCRS compared with CCAD, suggesting a greater degree of eosinophil stimulation and chemotaxis. Patients with CCAD were younger. Future investigation and biomarkers may better distinguish CRS subpopulations.

Atopic dermatitis, inhalant allergy and food allergy: A paediatric approach

Food and inhalant allergens have also been identified as potential trigger factors of atopic dermatitis symptoms. Here we aimed to investigate relationships between atopic dermatitis and inhalant-food allergen sensitization in Turkish children with atopic dermatitis. We included 70 patients (42 male, 28 female) with atopic dermatitis and 45 controls (30 male, 15 female) with no atopy, no atopy familial history, no atopy clinical findings no atopic dermatitis. We noted patients' and controls' age, gender, passive smoking exposure, atopy, xerosis, bath water temperature, shower gel type, clothes detergent type, blood hemoglobin, blood eosinophil count, blood eosinophil percent, values of serum immunoglobulin E, serum immunoglobulin A, serum immunoglobulin G, serum immunoglobulin M, results of inhalant allergen, and food allergen testing. We found that nine cases had inhalant allergen sensitization and 21 cases had food allergen sensitization. There were significant relationships between cases and controls in terms of count of eosinophil and percent of eosinophil (P = .008, P = .009, respectively). Humoral and cellular allergen-specific immune responses to food and inhalant allergens can be detected in patients with atopic dermatitis. Accordingly, we believe that blood eosinophil count and percent are more valuable laboratory parameters than serum total IgE for following patients with atopic dermatitis.

Rewiring of gene networks underlying mite allergen-induced CD4 + Th-cell responses during immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Multiple regulatory mechanisms have been identified employing conventional hypothesis-driven approaches as contributing to allergen-specific immunotherapy outcomes, but understanding of how these integrate to maintain immunological homeostasis is incomplete.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the potential for unbiased systems-level gene co-expression network analysis to advance understanding of immunotherapy mechanisms.

METHODS

We profiled genome-wide allergen-induced Th-cell responses prospectively during 24 months subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in 25 rhinitis, documenting changes in immunoinflammatory pathways and associated co-expression networks and their relationships to symptom scores out to 36 months.

RESULTS

Prior to immunotherapy, mite-induced Th-cell response networks involved multiple discrete co-expression modules including those related to Th2-, type1 IFN-, inflammation- and FOXP3/IL2-associated signalling. A signature comprising 109 genes correlated with symptom scores, and these mapped to cytokine signalling/T-cell activation-associated pathways, with upstream drivers including hallmark Th1/Th2- and inflammation-associated genes. Reanalysis after 3.5 months SCIT updosing detected minimal changes to pathway/upstream regulator profiles despite 32.5% symptom reduction; however, network analysis revealed underlying merging of FOXP3/IL2-with inflammation-and Th2-associated modules. By 12 months SCIT, symptoms had reduced by 41% without further significant changes to pathway/upstream regulator or network profiles. Continuing SCIT to 24 months stabilized symptoms at 47% of baseline, accompanied by upregulation of the type1 IFN-associated network module and its merging into the Th2/FOXP3/IL2/inflammation module.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous immunotherapy stimulates progressive integration of mite-induced Th cell-associated Th2-, FOXP3/IL2-, inflammation- and finally type1 IFN-signalling subnetworks, forming a single highly integrated co-expression network module, maximizing potential for stable homeostatic control of allergen-induced Th2 responses via cross-regulation. Th2-antagonistic type1 IFN signalling may play a key role in stabilizing clinical effects of SCIT.

Basophil Activation as Marker of Clinically Relevant Allergy and Therapy Outcome

For some years now the basophil activation test (BAT) using flow cytometry has emerged as a powerful tool and sensitive marker that can be used to detect clinically relevant allergies, provide information on the severity of an allergic reaction, and monitor therapies. Compared to other in vitro diagnostic tests, BAT seems to have a better informative value in terms of clinical relevance. In general, the BAT can be used for the diagnosis of the most common forms of IgE-mediated allergy such as hymenoptera venom allergy, inhalant allergy, food allergy, and drug allergy. Various basophil markers and parameters have been established which, depending on the trigger of the respective allergy, can provide information on the clinical relevance of sensitization, on the development of natural tolerance, on trigger thresholds, and on the severity of the allergic reaction. The BAT also serves as a suitable follow-up instrument for various therapeutic approaches such as specific immunotherapy, desensitization protocols, or use of anti-IgE-antibodies for the various diseases. Quality controls for routine use, standardization, and automatization are expected to expand the range of applications for the above-mentioned indications.

Allergy to Peanuts in Atopic Dermatitis Patients 14 Year or Older and the Association with Food Hypersensitivity, Inhalant Allergens, Asthma Bronchiale and Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In adult patients suffering from atopic dermatitis (AD), studies investigating the co-prevalence of AD and food allergy are still scarce, and exact data are not available.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the occurrence of food allergy to peanuts in significant relation to food hypersensitivity, inhalant allergy and to asthma bronchial and rhinitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Altogether 332 patients of AD 14 year or older were included in the study. The complete dermatological and allergological examinations were performed in all included patients (including examination of specific immunoglobulin E, skin prick test to different food and inhalant allergens, anamnestic data about food reactions, evaluation of allergic rhinitis, and allergic asthma bronchiale). We evaluated whether there was some relation between the food allergy to peanuts and followed parameters. Pairs of these categories were entered in the contingency tables, and the Chi-square test for the relationship of these variables was performed with the level of significance set to 5%.

RESULTS

Altogether 332 persons suffering from AD were included in the study of which 120 were male and 212 were female; the average age was 27.2 year. The significant relation between the allergy to peanuts and the occurrence of food hypersensitivity (FH) reactions to tomatoes, kiwi, apples, oranges, carrot and to the sensitization to grass, trees, mites, and the occurrence of rhinitis was found.

CONCLUSION

The significant relation between the allergy to peanuts and the occurrence of FH reactions and the sensitization to inhalant allergens and rhinitis was found. The future studies may show if the decrease in food allergy to peanuts can lead to the decrease of the occurrence of other FH reactions and sensitization to inhalant allergens and rhinitis in AD patients.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

AAOA allergy primer: history and physical examination

BACKGROUND

Allergic disease is very common in the general population and makes a significant impact on the quality of life of patients. Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergic disease manifests throughout the body, but many signs and symptoms of inhalant allergy are centered in the head and neck region.

METHODS

A thorough yet focused history of allergic symptoms and potential physical examination findings of inhalant allergy are described.

RESULTS

History should include types and timing of symptoms, environmental and occupational exposures, family history, associated diseases, and prior treatment, if any. Physical examination should include the skin and structures of the head and neck region. Nasal endoscopy can be helpful in visualization of nasal polyps.

CONCLUSION

Many times, history alone can serve to make the diagnosis, but physical examination also demonstrates specific findings that confirm the practitioner's presumptive diagnosis of allergic disease. However, should medical treatment fail or the diagnosis be in doubt, further diagnostic investigation with allergy testing should be pursued.

Analysis of comorbidities and objective parameters in refractory chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to construct the clinical profile of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with/without polyposis undergoing revision sinus surgery and to evaluate the relationship of polyposis, asthma, acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) (ASA) sensitivity, inhalant allergies, and previous sinus surgery on disease severity as measured by objective parameters.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Two-hundred twenty-five patients were accrued at a tertiary care academic center. Categorical factors recorded included presence of polyps, asthma, inhalant allergy, and ASA sensitivity. Continuous variables assessed included mean number of previous sinus surgeries, Lund-Kennedy endoscopy score, Lund-Mackay computed tomography (CT) score, absolute eosinophil count (AEC), and total immunoglobulin E (tIgE) level. Statistical analysis was performed to analyze the impact of polyposis, asthma, inhalant allergy, and ASA sensitivity on objective parameters. The mean number of previous surgeries was also correlated with objective parameters.

RESULTS

The mean age was 50.1 years with a male:female ratio of 1.1:1. The overall prevalence of polyposis, asthma, inhalant allergy, and ASA sensitivity was 56.4%, 48.4%, 38.7%, and 16.0%, respectively. The mean endoscopy and CT scores were 9.0 (± 4.0) and 11.4 (± 5.8), respectively. The mean AEC and tIgE were 0.4 k/μL (± 0.4) and 161.4 IU/mL (± 251.4). The mean number of previous endoscopic sinus surgeries was 1.8. Patients with CRS with polyposis had a statistically significant increase in presence of asthma (odds ratio [OR]: 7.5, P < .0001), inhalant allergy (OR: 3.6, P < .0001), and ASA sensitivity (OR: 78.6, P < .0001). Patients with polyposis had a statistically significant increase in endoscopy score (P < .0001), CT score (P < .0001), AEC (P < .0001), and tIgE (P = .0002). Patients with asthma had a statistically significant increase in endoscopy (P < .0001) and CT scores (P < .0001), AEC (P < .0001), and tIgE (P = .0002). Patients with inhalant allergy had a statistically significant increase in endoscopy (P = .0069), CT scores (P = .0017), and tIgE (P = .0084) but not AEC (P = .1492). Patients with ASA sensitivity had a statistically significant increase in endoscopy score (P < .0001), CT score (P < .0001), and AEC (P = .003) but not tIgE level (P = .186). The number of previous surgeries had a statistically significant correlation with endoscopy (P = .006) and CT scores (P = .03) but not AEC (P = .48) or tIgE (P = .66).

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis constructed the clinical profile of the recalcitrant CRS patient undergoing revision sinus surgery. In general, this patient group has a high prevalence of polyposis, asthma, inhalant allergy, ASA sensitivity, and elevated disease burden as measured by objective measures. The polyp phenotype signifies statistically higher prevalence of associated comorbidities and greater objective disease severity. The presence of asthma, inhalant allergy, and ASA sensitivity also predicts statistically higher disease burden. The endoscopy and CT scores statistically correlate with the number of previous surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 123:E1-E11, 2013.

Work-related allergic respiratory disease and asthma in spice mill workers is associated with inhalant chili pepper and garlic exposures

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence and risk factors for allergic respiratory disease in spice mill workers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 150 workers used European Community Respiratory Health Survey questionnaires, Phadiatop, serum specific IgE (garlic, chili pepper), spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Personal air samples (n=62) collected from eight-hour shifts were analysed for inhalable particulate mass. Novel immunological assays quantified airborne garlic and chili pepper allergen concentrations.

RESULTS

Mean dust particulate mass (geometric mean (GM)=2.06 mg/m(3)), chili pepper (GM=0.44 µg/m(3)) and garlic allergen (GM=0.24 µg/m(3)) were highest in blending and were highly correlated. Workers' mean age was 33 years, 71% were men, 46% current smokers and 45% atopic. Spice-dust-related asthma-like symptoms (17%) were common, as was garlic sensitisation (19%), with 13% being monosensitised and 6% cosensitised to chili pepper. Airflow reversibility and FeNO>50 ppb was present in 4% and 8% of workers respectively. Spice-dust-related ocular-nasal (OR 2.40, CI 1.09 to 5.27) and asthma-like (OR 4.15, CI 1.09 to 15.72) symptoms were strongly associated with airborne garlic in the highly exposed (>0.235 µg/m(3)) workers. Workers monosensitised to garlic were more likely to be exposed to higher airborne chili pepper (>0.92 µg/m(3)) (OR 11.52, CI 1.17 to 113.11) than garlic allergens (OR 5.08, CI 1.17 to 22.08) in this mill. Probable asthma was also more strongly associated with chili pepper than with garlic sensitisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to inhalable spice dust (GM >2.06 mg/m(3)) containing garlic (GM>0.24 µg/m&sup3;) and chili pepper (GM >0.44 µg/m(3)) allergens increase the risk of allergic respiratory disease and asthma.

Identification of Dioscorea batatas (sanyak) allergen as an inhalant and oral allergen

Dioscorea batatas is widely used in Asia as a herbal medicine or food product with potential health benefits. There have been several reports of occupational asthma caused by inhalation of D. batatas dust. However, there has been no report of systemic allergic reactions after oral administration of D. batatas. Two patients with D. batatas allergy were enrolled. One had experienced severe urticaria and angioedema after indigestion, and the other had been exposed to D. batatas dust and was diagnosed as having occupational asthma. Both patients had high serum-specific IgE and IgG4 antibodies to D. batatas. And IgE immunoblot demonstrated that both sera bound to a 27-kDa protein with an IgE-binding motif, which was revealed by 2-D-electrophoresis to have the sequence Asn-Val-Glu-Asp-Glu-Phe-Ser-X-Ile- Glu-Gly-Asn-Pro-X-X-Pro-Glu-Asn-X-Gly (pI 6.40, 6.04). In conclusion, discorin from D. batatas (DB3S) was identified as the major allergen of D. batatas in patients sensitized via an oral or inhalant route.