The effect of terfenadine on unilateral nasal challenge with allergen

Olfaction

Olfaction represents an ancient, evolutionarily critical physiologic system. In humans, chemosensation mediates safety, nutrition, sensation of pleasure, and general well-being. Factors that affect human olfaction included structural aspects of the nasal cavity that can modulate airflow and therefore odorant access to the olfactory cleft, and inflammatory disease, which can affect both airflow as well as olfactory nerve function. After signals are generated, olfactory information is processed and coded in the olfactory bulb and disseminated to several areas in the brain. The discovery of olfactory receptors by Axel and Buck sparked greater understanding of the molecular basis of olfaction. However, the precise mechanisms used by this system are still under great scrutiny due to the complexity of understanding how an enormous number of chemically diverse odorant molecules are coded into signals understood by the brain. Additionally, it has been challenging to dissect olfactory sensation due to the multiple areas of areas of the brain that receive and modulate this information. Consequently, our knowledge of olfactory dysfunction in humans remains primitive. Aging represents the major cause of loss of smell, although a number of clinical and environmental factors are thought to affect chemosensory function. Treatment options focus on reducing sinonasal inflammation when present, ruling out other treatable causes, and counseling patients on safety measures.

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.

The effects of the nasal antihistamines olopatadine and azelastine in nasal allergen provocation

BACKGROUND

Olopatadine, an antihistamine used in allergic conjunctivitis, is under development as a nasal preparation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of olopatadine in suppressing symptoms and biomarkers of the immediate reaction induced by nasal allergen provocation and to compare olopatadine with azelastine in the same model.

METHODS

The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University institutional review board, and all subjects gave written consent. We studied 20 asymptomatic subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study had 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phases that evaluated 2 concentrations of olopatadine, 0.1% and 0.2%. In a third exploratory phase, olopatadine, 0.1%, was compared with topical azelastine, 0.1%, in a patient-masked design. Efficacy variables were the allergen-induced sneezes, other clinical symptoms, and the levels of histamine, tryptase, albumin, lysozyme, and cysteinyl-leukotrienes (third study only) in nasal lavage fluids.

RESULTS

Both concentrations of olopatadine produced significant inhibition of all nasal symptoms, compared with placebo. Olopatadine, 0.1%, inhibited lysozyme levels, but olopatadine, 0.2%, inhibited histamine, albumin, and lysozyme. The effects of olopatadine, 0.1%, were comparable to those of azelastine, 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine, at 0.1% and 0.2% concentrations, was effective in suppressing allergen-induced nasal symptoms. At 0.2%, olopatadine provided evidence suggestive of inhibition of mast cell degranulation.

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.

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.

Levocetirizine better protects than desloratadine in a nasal provocation with allergen

BACKGROUND

Direct comparisons of antihistamines are rare but very much needed. Newly available antihistamine preparations, levocetirizine, the R-enantiomer of racemate cetirizine, and desloratadine, an active metabolite of loratadine, have been recently released for allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare levocetirizine and desloratadine in a nasal provocation test (NPT) with grass pollen.

METHODS

Twenty-four volunteers with grass pollen allergy and a history of rhinitis were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Three NPTs were performed in a dose-escalating manner during the out-of-season period 4 hours after a single dose of levocetirizine (5 mg), desloratadine (5 mg), or placebo.

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a better overall protection of a single dose of levocetirizine compared with desloratadine in an NPT with grass pollen allergen. In contrast to late-phase inflammatory markers, which were unaffected, extravascular leakage of the early-phase marker albumin was significantly limited by levocetirizine.

A Comparison of Skin Endpoint Titration and Skin-Prick Testing in the Diagnosis of Allergic Rhinitis

Among the many methods of allergy diagnosis are intradermal testing (IDT) and skin-prick testing (SPT). The usefulness of IDT has been called into question by some authors, while others believe that studies demonstrating that SPT was superior might have been subject to bias. We conducted a study to compare the validity of SPT and IDT—specifically, the skin endpoint titration (SET) type of IDT—in diagnosing allergic rhinitis. We performed nasal provocation testing on 62 patients to establish an unbiased screening criterion for study entry. Acoustic rhinometric measurements of the nasal responses revealed that 34 patients tested positive and 28 negative. All patients were subsequently tested by SET and SPT. We found that SPT was more sensitive (85.3 vs 79.4%) and more specific (78.6 vs 67.9%) than SET as a screening procedure. The positive predictive value of SPT was greater than that of SET (82.9 vs 75.0%), as was the negative predictive value (81.5 vs 73.0%). None of these differences was statistically significant; because of the relatively small sample size, our study was powered to show only equivalency. The results of our study suggest that the information obtained by the SET method of IDT is comparable to that obtained by SPT in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance and that both SET and SPT correlate well with nasal provocation testing for ragweed. Therefore, the decision as to which to use can be based on other factors, such as the practitioner's training, the desire for quantitative results, the desire for rapid results, and the type of treatment (i.e., immunotherapy or pharmacotherapy) that is likely to be chosen on the basis of test results.

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.

Effects of fexofenadine on the early response to nasal allergen challenge

BACKGROUND

Previous studies using nasal allergen challenge models have shown that terfenadine, an H1 antihistamine, inhibits histamine release during the early response to allergen provocation. Fexofenadine, the active metabolite of terfenadine, has strong H1-antihistaminic activity and no cardiac effects. Clinical studies have documented the efficacy of fexofenadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether fexofenadine, like terfenadine, inhibits histamine and tryptase release during the early allergic response.

METHODS

Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study in 20 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis, out of their allergy season (median age 27.5 years, 13 males and 7 females). Subjects were medicated with either placebo or fexofenadine 180 mg orally daily for 1 week followed by nasal challenge with allergen. After each challenge, sneezes and nasal symptoms were recorded, and a nasal lavage was obtained for the assay of albumin, an indicator of vascular permeability, and histamine and tryptase, indicators of mast cell degranulation.

RESULTS

When patients were on placebo, allergen challenges led to significant increases in all measured parameters compared with the sham challenges with diluent. Treatment with fexofenadine resulted in inhibition of allergen-induced symptoms and increased vascular permeability, but not the release of histamine and tryptase.

CONCLUSION

Fexofenadine is an effective H1 antihistamine, but in contrast to its parent compound, terfenadine, it does not affect the release of the mast cell mediators histamine and tryptase.

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.

Clinical manifestations of the release of histamine and other inflammatory mediators

This article reviews the symptoms that are characteristic of the early- and late-phase allergic reaction. Each of the cardinal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (sneezing, pruritus, rhinorrhea, congestion) is discussed, as is the role of various chemical mediators in the expression of these clinical manifestations.

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.

Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry and the amount of nasal secretion in the clinical monitoring of the nasal provocation test

BACKGROUND

The reliable interpretation of the nasal provocation test in allergy diagnosis requires objective and measurable monitoring parameters for clinical practice. The clinical usefulness of the nasal provocation test has been limited by scanty knowledge of the specificity and sensitivity of the test and a lack of reference values.

OBJECTIVE

To test and compare three objective monitoring parameters of a nasal provocation test in occupational allergic rhinitis. To evaluate the magnitude of the nasonasal effects in a unilateral allergen challenge.

METHODS

The monitoring parameters of the nasal reaction were derived from the minimum cross-sectional area on acoustic rhinometry, the nasal resistance on active anterior rhinomanometry and the amount of nasal secretion measured at 15 min intervals for 60 min. Twenty-three bovine-allergic dairy and beef cattle farmers and 19 exposed, non-allergic control subjects were challenged first with a control solution and then with the cow allergen.

RESULTS

All the three monitoring parameters showed high specificity and sensitivity in finding allergic and non-allergic subjects. The secretion parameter was found to be slightly superior to the acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry parameters. The side difference in the nasal response between the allergen-challenged and the contralateral diluent-challenged cavity was significant for all the parameters among the allergic subjects. The contralateral secretion amount was 1/3 of the ipsilateral secretion, indicating the magnitude of the contralateral nasonasal reflex. A nasonasal reflex was also noted in the nasal patency monitoring. The coefficient of variation was significantly lower for the acoustic rhinometry than for the rhinomanometry (P=0.0001). The optimal threshold values for a positive test were a secretion amount of 100 mg, a 15% decrease in the minimum cross-sectional area and a 50% increase in the resistance for the observation period of 30 min and correspondingly 210 mg, 30% and 100% for 60 min.

CONCLUSION

The low-pressure aspiration of the nasal secretion from the anterior part of the nasal cavity was found to be a reliable and practical monitoring parameter to be used together with acoustic rhinometry or rhinomanometry in the nasal provocation test for clinical purposes. Although significant nasonasal effects took place in the unilateral allergen challenge, the response was more prominent in the allergen-challenged than in the contralateral diluent-challenged nasal cavity in most allergic subjects.

In vivo diagnostic procedures: skin testing, nasal provocation, and bronchial provocation

In vivo challenge procedures can be very useful in the analysis of allergic symptoms. Skin testing has a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for determining antigens that cause allergic disease. However, positive skin tests do not necessarily indicate that a specific allergen causes symptoms specific for a certain organ. Nasal and whole lung provocation testing can help define relevant allergens that cause rhinitis or asthma symptoms. These tests are safe when performed properly under close medical supervision and have predictive values that make them useful diagnostic tools.

The role of nitric oxide in the neural control of nasal fluid production

The production of nasal fluids serves an important role in the protection of the upper respiratory system, but can also be a troublesome symptom of rhinitis. The chief sources of nasal fluids are serous and mucous glandular secretion, epithelial goblet cell exocytosis, and exudation from submucosal blood vessels. This study was designed to investigate the role of nitric oxide in neurogenically mediated nasal vascular exudation and mucus secretion. A rat model of the naso-nasal reflex was developed in which one nasal cavity was challenged with histamine while albumin and mucin production were measured in the continuously perfused contralateral side. Histamine challenge was associated with a significant rise in contralateral albumin and mucin content. Perfusion with a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor (L-NAME) in the nasal cavity contralateral to nasal challenge was found to block albumin leakage, but not mucin secretion, on that side. The inhibition of vascular exudation was overcome by the addition of L-arginine, the natural substrate of nitric oxide synthase, to the perfusate. Treatment of the ipsilateral nasal of the ipsilateral nasal cavity with L-NAME did not significantly after the contralateral response. A high correlation was observed between albumin and mucin concentration in the perfusate. These findings indicate that NO is a mediator of the effector arm of the naso-nasal reflex that increases vascular permeability, but is not involved in the sensory nerve afferent pathway or in reflex mucin release. Further elucidation of the role of NO in nasal physiology may lead to novel pharmacotherapeutic approaches to the treatment of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis.

Low dose clemastine inhibits sneezing and rhinorrhea during the early nasal allergic reaction

BACKGROUND

Clemastine (1 mg) is currently available over-the-counter for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of half the standard dose of clemastine (0.5 mg) in inhibiting the nasal response to allergen and the cutaneous response to histamine.

METHODS

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 20 allergic subjects out of season. The subjects received placebo or clemastine administered one, four, and six hours before the challenges. Filter paper discs were used both to challenge the nasal mucosa with diluent and allergen and collect generated secretions. Sneezes, secretion weights, nasal and ocular symptoms, and albumin levels in nasal secretions were monitored for the nasal challenge. Intradermal skin testing was performed with diluent followed by histamine and the wheal and flare reactions were measured.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in the number of sneezes after clemastine administered one, four, and six hours prior to challenge compared with placebo (P < .01). Clemastine administered four and six hours before challenge reduced sneezing significantly more than clemastine administered one hour before challenge (P < .05). Antigen-induced increases in secretion weights and symptoms of rhinorrhea were significantly reduced compared with placebo only when clemastine was administered four and six hours prior to challenge (P < .05). Pretreatment with clemastine had no significant inhibitory effects on other nasal symptoms or on albumin levels in nasal secretions, an objective index of increased vascular permeability. Pretreatment with clemastine did not inhibit the histamine-induced wheal skin reaction but showed a tendency, when administered six hours prior to the intradermal challenge, to reduce the flare reaction induced by the lowest dose of histamine (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The data show that clemastine, given at half the usual dose four and six hours prior to allergen challenge, provides relief for sneezing and rhinorrhea and suggests that this dose might be useful in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Treatment with hot, humid air reduces the nasal response to allergen challenge

Ten subjects with asymptomatic seasonal allergy, outside of their allergy season, underwent allergen provocation following 1 hour of exposure to air at either 20 degrees C and 30% relative humidity (RH) or air at 37 degrees C and 90% RH. The ipsilateral changes following antigen challenge were compared under the two conditions. Conditioning of the nose to 37 degrees C, 90% RH reduced total histamine release (7.9 +/- 1.8 ng vs 4.2 +/- 1.3 ng; p < or = 0.05), sneezes (6 +/- 2 vs 3 +/- 1; p < or = 0.05), pruritus (score of 17.4 +/- 6.0 vs score of 2.0 +/- 1.8 out of a total score of 100, p < or = 0.01), nasal airway resistance (1.4 +/- 0.8 kPa/L/sec vs 0.2 +/- 0.1 kPa/L/sec; p < or = 0.05), human serum albumin levels (389.6 +/- 53.4 micrograms vs 242.2 +/- 37.9 micrograms; p < or = 0.05), and congestion (score of 23.8 +/- 4.8 vs score of 10.6 +/- 5.4 out of a total score of 100, p < or = 0.01). It had no effect on the volume of secretions (p = 0.8), lactoferrin levels (p = 0.3), or rhinorrhea (p = 1.0). Thus air at 37 degrees C and 90% RH partially reduces the early response to antigen. Its effects are greatest on histamine release, the vascular response, and neural responses, with no effect on the glandular response. The mechanisms underlying these effects are unknown.

Evidence that enhanced nasal reactivity to bradykinin in patients with symptomatic allergy is mediated by neural reflexes

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether allergic inflammation induces nasal hyperreactivity to bradykinin by enhancing neuronal responsiveness.

METHODS

We compared the response to localized, unilateral nasal challenge with bradykinin in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and nonallergic subjects, and in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis challenged in and out of season. Weights of secretions from each nostril were recorded, and levels of albumin and lactoferrin in secretions recovered from each nostril were assayed. Contralateral administration of atropine (0.32 mg) was used to evaluate the role of cholinergic reflexes in nasal hyperresponsiveness to bradykinin.

RESULTS

In patients with symptomatic allergy, bradykinin induced greater symptom scores than in asymptomatic atopic or nonallergic control subjects. Moreover, bradykinin caused sneezing in a majority of patients with symptomatic allergy but in none of the asymptomatic atopic or nonallergic control subjects. Only patients with symptomatic allergy showed dose-dependent bilateral increases in secretion weights and levels of the serous glandular marker, lactoferrin. In contrast, bradykinin induced similar increases in ipsilateral, but not contralateral, levels of albumin in all patient populations. Atropine inhibited contralateral secretion and lactoferrin production (p < 0.05) in patients with symptomatic allergy.

CONCLUSION

The induction of sneezing and of atropine-inhibitable contralateral glandular secretion demonstrates that allergic inflammation causes nasal hyperreactivity to bradykinin, at least in part, by enhancing neuronal responsiveness.

Observations on the response of the nasal mucosa to allergens

Allergic rhinitis is the sixth most prevalent chronic health condition in the United States. To study the pathogenesis of the allergic response, we have used a model of nasal provocation with antigen. During the initial reaction of an allergic subject to allergen provocation, increases occur in the levels of histamine, tryptase, and prostaglandin D2. This pattern of mediator release, combined with histologic evidence of mast-cell degranulation, strongly supports the role of the mast cell in the acute allergic reaction. The response to antigen, however, does not end with mast-cell degranulation. Hours after challenge we observed the spontaneous recurrence of symptoms and increased responsiveness to antigenic and nonantigenic stimuli. Our central hypothesis is that cellular infiltration and activation after antigen challenge are responsible for the observed increase in nasal reactivity. The predominant cells in nasal lavage 24 hours after challenge are eosinophils and neutrophils, whereas the predominant cell in the mucosa is the CD4+ lymphocyte. An early step in the movement of cells from the peripheral blood involves adhesion between circulating leukocytes and the endothelium. Evidence suggests that vascular endothelial adhesion molecule may be responsible in part for the selective adherence of eosinophils to the endothelium.