Idiopathic rhinitis, the ongoing quest

Ipratropium Bromide Nasal Spray in Non-Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of intranasal ipratropium bromide (INIB) to a placebo in reducing nasal symptoms, particularly rhinorrhea, and enhancing quality of life in non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative parallel group trials comparing IB nasal spray to placebo were included.

RESULTS

Five RCTs assessed a total of 472 participants with a diagnosis of NAR. IB nasal spray 0.03% were used across all studies. IB has a better impact on decreasing rhinorrhea than the placebo, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.93 (95% CI 0.06-1.8). The mean change in rhinorrhea severity was 85% (95% CI 77-92%) and I^2 26% (p = 0.24). IB outperformed the placebo in terms of shortening the symptom's duration/day, as shown by an SMD of 0.35 (95% CI 0.15-0.55). The difference between treatments was noticeable within the first week and remained consistent throughout the treatment. Patients who were administered IB experienced a substantially greater improvement in physical and mental outcomes. Nasal adverse events with IB were generally intermittent and brief.

CONCLUSION

Compared with a placebo, IB nasal spray is both safe and effective in treating the rhinorrhea associated with NAR. IB significantly reduces the severity and duration of rhinorrhea. The treatment was determined to be beneficial by both patients and physicians and resulted in a better quality of life.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 Laryngoscope, 133:3247-3255, 2023.

Mometasone Furoate in Non-Allergic Rhinitis: A Real-Life Italian Study

Background: In order to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal mometasone furoate in patients with non-allergic rhinitis (NAR), a real-life, observational, prospective study is performed. Methods: Thirty-one patients (age 18–64 years) receive intranasal (mometasone furoate, 200 µg b.i.d. for 15 consecutive days per month for 6 consecutive months), plus isotonic nasal saline. The cytologic pattern of local inflammation, nasal airflow, through peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), quality of life (QoL), through the rhinitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ), the sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22), the short-form 36-item health survey (SF-36v2), and the combined symptom medication score (CSMS), and, finally, olfactory function, through Sniffin’ sticks-16 identification test (SSIT-16), are evaluated at baseline and after treatment. Results: NARNE is the most frequent cytological pattern (48% of the total sample). The therapeutic response shows improvement in olfactory function and QoL. Conclusions: The results of this study confirm that intranasal mometasone furoate is an effective treatment for patients with NAR.

Efficacy of Vidian Neurectomy and Posterior Nasal Neurectomy in the Management of Nonallergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is characterized by rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and sneezing, in the absence of systemic sensitization to allergens. For cases refractory to medical therapy and conservative surgical interventions, more targeted procedures, such as endoscopic vidian neurectomy (EVN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN), including surgical (SPNN) and cryoablative (CPNN) methods, may reduce symptoms of NAR.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, side effect profile, and complication rate between EVN and PNN for NAR.

METHODS

A systematic review of primary articles that reported original patient data for either EVN or PNN was conducted using Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases since 2006, according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome of the study was an improvement in NAR symptom severity. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative side effects or complications.

RESULTS

In total, 58 articles met the search criteria with a total of 9 studies (including 2 RCTs) eligible for inclusion. There was a pooled sample of 229 NAR patients that underwent EVN (n = 65; 28.4%), SPNN (n = 50; 21.8%), or CPNN (n = 114; 49.8%). For all 3 techniques, there was a statistically significant improvement in nasal symptoms, particularly rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and obstruction along with quality of life. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting prevented meta-analysis and direct comparison of efficacy. The pooled incidence of postoperative complications for EVN (n = 65), SPNN (n = 50), and CPNN (n = 70) was 30.8% versus 0% versus 2.9% for dry eye, 16.9% versus 0% versus 1.4% for palatal/cheek numbness, and 0% versus 6% versus 4.3% for bleeding.

CONCLUSION

EVN, SPNN, and CPNN are similarly efficacious for patients with NAR refractory to medical management. SPNN and CPNN are associated with lower rates of complications (dry eye and palatal/cheek numbness) compared with EVN.

The Role of IgA in Chronic Upper Airway Disease: Friend or Foe?

Chronic upper airway inflammation is amongst the most prevalent chronic disease entities in the Western world with prevalence around 30% (rhinitis) and 11% (rhinosinusitis). Chronic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis may severely impair the quality of life, leading to a significant socio-economic burden. It becomes more and more clear that the respiratory mucosa which forms a physiological as well as chemical barrier for inhaled particles, plays a key role in maintaining homeostasis and driving disease. In a healthy state, the mucosal immune system provides protection against pathogens as well as maintains a tolerance toward non-harmful commensal microbes and benign environmental substances such as allergens. One of the most important players of the mucosal immune system is immunoglobulin (Ig) A, which is well-studied in gut research where it has emerged as a key factor in creating tolerance to potential food allergens and maintaining a healthy microbiome. Although, it is very likely that IgA plays a similar role at the level of the respiratory epithelium, very little research has been performed on the role of this protein in the airways, especially in chronic upper airway diseases. This review summarizes what is known about IgA in upper airway homeostasis, as well as in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, including current and possible new treatments that may interfere with the IgA system. By doing so, we identify unmet needs in exploring the different roles of IgA in the upper airways required to find new biomarkers or therapeutic options for treating chronic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis.

The prevalence of non-allergic rhinitis phenotypes in the general population: A cross-sectional study

Background

Non‐allergic rhinitis (NAR) can be subdivided into several phenotypes: rhinorrhea of the elderly, rhinitis medicamentosa, smokers', occupational, hormonal, drug‐induced, gustatory, and idiopathic rhinitis. There are two pathophysiological endotypes of NAR: inflammatory and neurogenic. Phenotypes may serve as an indicator of an underlying endotype and, therefore, help to guide the treatment. The prevalence of each phenotype in the general population is currently unknown.

Methodology/Principal

Cross‐sectional questionnaire‐based study in the general population of the Netherlands.

Results

The prevalence of chronic rhinitis in the general population was 40% (N = 558, of those, 65% had NAR and 28% AR, in 7% allergy status is unknown). Individuals with NAR (N = 363) had significantly more complaints in October–February. Those with AR (N = 159) had significantly more complaints in April–August. The most common NAR phenotypes were idiopathic (39%) and rhinitis medicamentosa (14%), followed by occupational (8%), smokers' (6%), hormonal (4%), gustatory (4%), and rhinorrhea of the elderly (4%). The least prevalent phenotype was drug induced (1%). Nineteen percent of the NAR group could not be classified into any of the phenotypes.

Conclusions

This is the first study to describe the prevalences of NAR phenotypes in the general population. AR and NAR have a distinct seasonality pattern with NAR being more prevalent in autumn/winter and AR in spring/summer. Our data on the prevalence of phenotypes may help clinicians to anticipate the type of patients at their clinic and help guide a tailored treatment approach. The high prevalence of rhinitis medicamentosa is alarming, since this is a potentially preventable phenotype.

Prevalence, comorbidities, diagnosis, and treatment of nonallergic rhinitis: real-world comparison with allergic rhinitis

Rhinitis is among the most common respiratory diseases in children. Nonallergic rhinitis, which involves nasal symptoms without evidence of systemic allergic inflammation or infection, is a heterogeneous entity with diverse manifestations and intensities. Nonallergic rhinitis accounts for 16%-89% of the chronic rhinitis cases, affecting 1%-50% (median 10%) of the total pediatric population. The clinical course of nonallergic rhinitis is generally rather mild and less likely to be associated with allergic comorbidities than allergic rhinitis. Here, we aimed to estimate the rate of coexisting comorbidities of nonallergic rhinitis. Nonallergic rhinitis is more prevalent during the first 2 years of life; however, its underestimation for children with atopic tendencies is likely due to low positive rates of specific allergic tests during early childhood. Local allergic rhinitis is a recently noted phenotype with rates similar to those in adults (median, 44%; range, 4%-67%), among patients previously diagnosed with nonallergic rhinitis. Idiopathic rhinitis, a subtype of nonallergic rhinitis, has been poorly studied in children, and its rates are known to be lower than those in adults. The prevalence of nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome is even lower. A correlation between nonallergic rhinitis and pollution has been suggested owing to the recent increase in nonallergic rhinitis rates in highly developing regions such as some Asian countries, but many aspects remain unknown. Conventional treatments include antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and recent treatments include combination of intranasal corticosteroids with azelastin or decongestants. Here we review the prevalence, diagnosis, comorbidities, and treatment recommendations for nonallergic rhinitis versus allergic rhinitis in children.

Developing nomograms for identifying allergic rhinitis among chronic rhinitis: A real-world study

Background

It is difficult to discriminate allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) in clinical practice due to the similar clinical manifestations. The study was to assess both the demographical and clinical features of AR and NAR in the real-world data of outpatients in China.

Methods

It was a cross-sectional real-world study. AR and NAR were defined based on both subjective symptoms and objective specific serum IgE test. General demographic characteristics as well as clinical information were documented. Patients were further classified according the seasons of initial visiting hospital (during pollen seasons or not). A scoring system presented as nomograms for presence of AR was performed.

Results

In the pollen season group, age distribution, the duration of rhinitis, comorbidity of asthma, food allergies, and score of coughing were found significantly associated with AR. Additionally, in the non-pollen season group, we found that ethnicity, age distributions, duration of rhinitis, comorbidity of asthma, food allergies, and family history of allergy, together with scores of gritty eyes were associated factors of AR. Based on multivariate logistic model, we built two nomograms which included previously identified significant risk factors that could be acquired easily during clinical practice with predictive variables to assess their roles in predicting the risk of AR among outpatients with rhinitis.

Conclusions

The characteristics of patients with different phenotypes of chronic rhinitis are distinctive in different seasons and the developed nomogram in this study might be beneficial for clinical practice.

Benefits and harm of systemic steroids for short- and long-term use in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis: an EAACI position paper

Because of the inflammatory mechanisms of most chronic upper airway diseases such as rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis, systemic steroids have been used for their treatment for decades. However, it has been very well documented that—potentially severe—side-effects can occur with the accumulation of systemic steroid courses over the years. A consensus document summarizing the benefits of systemic steroids for each upper airway disease type, as well as highlighting the potential harms of this treatment is currently lacking. Therefore, a panel of international experts in the field of Rhinology reviewed the available literature with the aim of providing recommendations for the use of systemic steroids in treating upper airway disease.

Intranasal corticosteroids for non-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Non-allergic rhinitis is defined as dysfunction and non-infectious inflammation of the nasal mucosa that is caused by provoking agents other than allergens or microbes. It is common, with an estimated prevalence of around 10% to 20%. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, anterior rhinorrhoea/post-nasal drip and sneezing. Several subgroups of non-allergic rhinitis can be distinguished, depending on the trigger responsible for symptoms; these include occupation, cigarette smoke, hormones, medication, food and age. On a cellular molecular level different disease mechanisms can also be identified. People with non-allergic rhinitis often lack an effective treatment as a result of poor understanding and lack of recognition of the underlying disease mechanism. Intranasal corticosteroids are one of the most common types of medication prescribed in patients with rhinitis or rhinosinusitis symptoms, including those with non-allergic rhinitis. However, it is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids are truly effective in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in the management of non-allergic rhinitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 7); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 July 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intranasal corticosteroids, delivered by any means and in any volume, with (a) placebo/no intervention or (b) other active treatments in adults and children (aged ≥ 12 years).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a significant adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were (disease-specific) health-related quality of life, objective measurements of airflow and other adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies (4452 participants); however, only 13 studies provided data for our main comparison, intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo. The participants were mainly defined as patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms and negative allergy tests. No distinction between different pheno- and endotypes could be made, although a few studies only included a specific phenotype such as pregnancy rhinitis, vasomotor rhinitis, rhinitis medicamentosa or senile rhinitis. Most studies were conducted in a secondary or tertiary healthcare setting. No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Intranasal corticosteroid dosage in the review ranged from 50 µg to 2000 µg daily. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo Thirteen studies (2045 participants) provided data for this comparison. These studies used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data in each analysis using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.15 to -0.33; 4 studies; 131 participants; I² = 22%) (low-certainty evidence). However, between four weeks and three months the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.20; 3 studies; 85 participants; I² = 0%) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may slightly improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score change from baseline when compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 4 studies; 1465 participants; I² = 35%) (low-certainty evidence). All four studies evaluating the risk of epistaxis showed that there is probably a higher risk in the intranasal corticosteroids group (65 per 1000) compared to placebo (31 per 1000) (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.57; 4 studies; 1174 participants; I² = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute risk difference (RD) was 0.04 with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 25 (95% CI 16.7 to 100). Only one study reported numerical data for quality of life. It did report a higher quality of life score in the intranasal corticosteroids group (152.3 versus 145.6; SF-12v2 range 0 to 800); however, this disappeared at longer-term follow-up (148.4 versus 145.6) (low-certainty evidence). Only two studies provided data for the outcome objective measurements of airflow. These data could not be pooled because they used different methods of outcome measurement. Neither found a significant difference between the intranasal corticosteroids and placebo group (rhinomanometry SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.14; 44 participants; peak expiratory flow rate SMD 0.78, 95% CI -0.47 to 2.03; 11 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids probably resulted in little or no difference in the risk of other adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3 studies; 1130 participants; I² = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids versus other treatments Only one or a few studies assessed each of the other comparisons (intranasal corticosteroids versus saline irrigation, intranasal antihistamine, capsaicin, cromoglycate sodium, ipratropium bromide, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroids with saline compared to saline alone). It is therefore uncertain whether there are differences between intranasal corticosteroids and other active treatments for any of the outcomes reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence for most outcomes in this review was low or very low. It is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids reduce patient-reported disease severity in non-allergic rhinitis patients compared with placebo when measured at up to three months. However, intranasal corticosteroids probably have a higher risk of the adverse effect epistaxis. There are very few studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids to other treatment modalities making it difficult to draw conclusions.

Nasal hyperreactivity in rhinitis: A diagnostic and therapeutic challenge

Although nasal hyperreactivity (NHR) is a common feature in patients suffering from allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, it is widely neglected during history taking, underdiagnosed in the majority of patients with rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, not considered as an outcome parameter in clinical trials on novel treatments for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, and no target for routine treatment. In contrast to the simple nature of diagnosing NHR by a history of nasal symptoms induced by nonspecific exogenous and/or endogenous triggers, quantification is hardly performed in routine clinic given the lack of a simple tool for its diagnosis. So far, limited efforts have been invested into gaining better insight in the underlying pathophysiology of NHR, helping us to explain why some patients with inflammation develop NHR and others not. Of note, environmental and microbial factors have been reported to influence NHR, contributing to the complex nature of understanding the development of NHR. As a consequence of the neglect of NHR as a key clinical feature of rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), patients with NHR might be suboptimally controlled and/or dissatisfied with current treatment. We here aim to provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge on the pathophysiology, and the available tools to diagnose and treat NHR.

Endotyping of non-allergic, allergic and mixed rhinitis patients using a broad panel of biomarkers in nasal secretions

Background

Endotyping chronic rhinitis has proven hardest for the subgroup of non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) patients. While IgE-related inflammation is typical for allergic rhinitis (AR), no markers have been found that can be seen to positively identify NAR. A further complication is that AR and NAR might co-exist in patients with mixed rhinitis. As previous studies have considered only a limited number of inflammatory mediators, we wanted to explore whether a wider panel of mediators could help us refine the endotyping in chronic rhinitis patients.

Objective

To endotype chronic rhinitis, and non-allergic rhinitis in particular, with help of molecular or cellular markers.

Method

In this study we included 23 NAR patients without allergen sensitizations and with persistent rhinitis symptoms, 22 pollen sensitized rhinitis patients with seasonal symptoms, 21 mixed rhinitis patients with pollen-related symptoms and persistent symptoms outside of the pollen season, and 23 healthy controls without any symptoms. Nasal secretions were collected outside of pollen season and differences between the endotypes were assessed for a broad range of inflammatory mediators and growths factors using a multiplex ELISA.

Results

Although we were able to identify two new nasal secretion makers (IL-12 and HGF) that were low in mixed and AR patients versus NAR and healthy controls, the most intriguing outcome is that despite investigating 29 general inflammatory mediators and growth factors no clear profile of non-allergic or mixed rhinitis could be found.

Conclusion

Classical inflammatory markers are not able to differentiate between non-allergic or mixed rhinitis patients and healthy controls.

The association of nasal patency with small airway resistance in children with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is immunologically and morphologically related to disorders in the lower airway. We investigated the relationship between the anatomy of the intranasal cavity and small airway resistance in subjects with nonallergic rhinitis (NAR).

METHODS

We enrolled 226 children who were 7 years old and participated in the Seongnam Atopy Project 2016. We evaluated nasal patency using acoustic rhinometry to measure the volume of the nasal cavity at 0-5 cm, and measured lung function of the lower airway using an impulse oscillometry system (IOS) and spirometry. We also performed skin prick tests for 18 aero-allergens, and measured blood total eosinophil counts (TEC) and rhinitis symptom scores for the previous month using a visual analog scale (VAS, range: 0-10).

RESULTS

We examined 226 children, 71 (31.7%) with AR, and 62 (27.7%) with NAR. Nasal patency in children with AR (median: 8.28 mm³ , IQR: 7.07-9.83) was lower than that of healthy children (median: 9.3 mm³ , IQR: 7.69-10.64, P = 0.011). Multivariate regression analysis showed that nasal patency was inversely associated with IOS resistance at 5 Hz after adjustment for compounding factors (B = -0.005, SE = 0.0032, P = 0.041). Analysis of NAR subjects, according to quartiles of nasal patency and quartiles of small airway resistance (Rrs5), indicated that nasal patency decreased as Rrs5 increased (linear trend: P = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

Nasal symptoms and TEC negatively correlated with nasal patency. Children with AR and NAR who had poor nasal patency had increased small airway resistance.

Non-allergic rhinitis: Position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

This EAACI position paper aims at providing a state-of-the-art overview on nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). A significant number of patients suffering from persistent rhinitis are defined as nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis (NANIR) patients, often denominated in short as having NAR. NAR is defined as a symptomatic inflammation of the nasal mucosa with the presence of a minimum of two nasal symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and/or itchy nose, without clinical evidence of endonasal infection and without systemic signs of sensitization to inhalant allergens. Symptoms of NAR may have a wide range of severity and be either continuously present and/or induced by exposure to unspecific triggers, also called nasal hyperresponsiveness (NHR). NHR represents a clinical feature of both AR and NAR patients. NAR involves different subgroups: drug-induced rhinitis, (nonallergic) occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis (including pregnancy rhinitis), gustatory rhinitis, senile rhinitis, and idiopathic rhinitis (IR). NAR should be distinguished from those rhinitis patients with an allergic reaction confined to the nasal mucosa, also called "entopy" or local allergic rhinitis (LAR). We here provide an overview of the current consensus on phenotypes of NAR, recommendations for diagnosis, a treatment algorithm, and defining the unmet needs in this neglected area of research.

Histamine and T helper cytokine-driven epithelial barrier dysfunction in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by mucosal inflammation, driven by activated immune cells. Mast cells and T_H2 cells might decrease epithelial barrier integrity in AR, maintaining a leaky epithelial barrier.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the role of histamine and T_H2 cells in driving epithelial barrier dysfunction in AR.

METHODS

Air-liquid interface cultures of primary nasal epithelial cells were used to measure transepithelial electrical resistance, paracellular flux of fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran 4 kDa, and mRNA expression of tight junctions. Nasal secretions were collected from healthy control subjects, AR patients, and idiopathic rhinitis patients and were tested in vitro. In addition, the effect of activated T_H1 and T_H2 cells, mast cells, and neurons was tested in vitro. The effect of IL-4, IL-13, IFN-γ, and TNF-α on mucosal permeability was tested in vivo.

RESULTS

Histamine as well as nasal secretions of AR but not idiopathic rhinitis patients rapidly decreased epithelial barrier integrity in vitro. Pretreatment with histamine receptor-1 antagonist, azelastine prevented the early effect of nasal secretions of AR patients on epithelial integrity. Supernatant of activated T_H1 and T_H2 cells impaired epithelial integrity, while treatment with anti-TNF-α or anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies restored the T_H1- and T_H2-induced epithelial barrier dysfunction, respectively. IL-4, IFN-γ, and TNF-α enhanced mucosal permeability in mice. Antagonizing IL-4 prevented mucosal barrier disruption and tight junction downregulation in a mouse model of house dust mite allergic airway inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate a key role for allergic inflammatory mediators in modulating nasal epithelial barrier integrity in the pathophysiology in AR.

Capsaicin for Rhinitis

Rhinitis is a multifactorial disease characterized by symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion. Non-allergic rhinitis is characterized by rhinitis symptoms without systemic sensitization of infectious etiology. Based on endotypes, we can categorize non-allergic rhinitis into an inflammatory endotype with usually eosinophilic inflammation encompassing at least NARES and LAR and part of the drug induced rhinitis (e.g., aspirin intolerance) and a neurogenic endotype encompassing idiopathic rhinitis, gustatory rhinitis, and rhinitis of the elderly. Patients with idiopathic rhinitis have a higher baseline TRPV1 expression in the nasal mucosa than healthy controls. Capsaicin (8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide) is the active component of chili peppers, plants of the genus Capsicum. Capsaicin is unique among naturally occurring irritant compounds because the initial neuronal excitation evoked by it is followed by a long-lasting refractory period, during which the previously excited neurons are no longer responsive to a broad range of stimuli. Patients with idiopathic rhinitis benefit from intranasal treatment with capsaicin. Expression of TRPV1 is reduced in patients with idiopathic rhinitis after capsaicin treatment. Recently, in a Cochrane review, the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of idiopathic rhinitis was evaluated and the authors concluded that given that many other options do not work well in non-allergic rhinitis, capsaicin is a reasonable option to try under physician supervision. Capsaicin has not been shown to be effective in allergic rhinitis nor in other forms of non-allergic rhinitis like the inflammatory endotypes or other neurogenic endotypes like rhinitis of the elderly or smoking induced rhinitis.

Novel, Alternative, and Controversial Therapies of Rhinitis

Rhinitis is a multifactorial disease characterized by sneezing, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion. This condition affects 10% to 40% of the population and is responsible for billions of spent health care dollars and impairment in quality of life for those affected. Currently available medical and vaccine therapies are effective for a large segment of this population; however, a subset of patients still has difficult-to-control rhinitis. This article reviews the current progress being made in novel drug and vaccine development and delves into alternative medical, surgical, and homeopathic strategies that may be promising adjunctive treatments for the difficult-to-treat rhinitis patient.

Nonallergic Rhinitis: Environmental Determinants

"Nonallergic rhinitis" (NAR) is defined by intermittent or persistent nasal symptoms without evidence of immunoglobulin E-mediated sensitization to relevant aeroallergens. The largest subgroup is idiopathic, and is characterized by nasal hyperreactivity to nonspecific environmental triggers, including temperature, humidity, and chemical exposures. As nonspecific nasal hyperreactivity is often found in the absence of mucosal inflammation, some clinicians refer to this condition as "nonallergic rhinopathy." Irritant rhinitis, can arise de novo after high-level and/or prolonged exposure to airborne irritant chemicals. We review the range of environmentally induced nonallergic nasal symptoms and signs, and explore issues of pathophysiology unique to environmental chemical exposures.

Rhinitis Subtypes, Endotypes, and Definitions

Rhinitis is often seen as posing a small burden. However, rhinitis is a complex disease that is underpinned by a plethora of different mechanisms and causes. Rhinitis is frequently associated with other comorbid conditions but, by itself, is a source of considerable morbidity for patients and creates a significant financial burden on health systems worldwide. This article approaches this condition from both a phenotypic and mechanistic standpoint, focusing on the complexity of characterizing these subtypes. Developing a clearer demarcation of the currently obscure rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes will substantially improve their future prevention and treatment.

Nonallergic Rhinitis: Treatment

Chronic nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is a syndrome rather than a specific disease. A lack of understanding of the pathogenesis of this condition has led to imprecise terminology with several alternate names for the condition, including vasomotor rhinitis, nonallergic rhinopathy, and idiopathic rhinitis. The therapy for NAR is best based on the underlying pathology, which typically exists in a form whereby an abnormality of the autonomic nervous system is dominant or a form in which inflammation seems to be the cause of symptoms. In general the most effective therapy is the combination of an intranasal antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid.

The importance of mold sensitivity in nonallergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

In recent studies, local specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) production against allergens in nasal mucosa and a positive response to a nasal allergen provocation test (NAPT) have been demonstrated in some patients initially diagnosed as nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) or idiopathic rhinitis (IR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of local allergic rhinitis (LAR) in patients who experience rhinitis symptoms in indoor and outdoor moldy conditions and to investigate the role of the NAPT in diagnosis.

METHODS

A total of 40 NAR patients with a history of persistent rhinitis and who had negative skin-prick tests (SPTs) and serum sIgE levels to common aeroallergens, as well as 20 healthy subjects were included in the study. NAPTs were performed with Aspergillus fumigatus (group 1) or a mixture of Alternaria alternata and Cladosporium herbarum extracts (group 2).

RESULTS

In patient nasal lavage fluids, tryptase and mold sIgE levels were not significantly different from the control group. NAPT with Aspergillus fumigatus was positive in 8 of 12 NAR patients (66.6%) in group 1 and NAPT with the mixture of extracts was positive in 9 of 13 NAR patients (69.2%) in group 2.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that LAR may exist in a significant number of the persistent rhinitis patients who were previously considered as NAR based on negative SPTs or serum sIgE tests. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating a nasal local allergic response to both indoor and outdoor molds.

[Local allergic rhinitis to Alternaria alternata : Evidence for local IgE production exclusively in the nasal mucosa]

In a subgroup of patients with symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), no systemic sensitization can be detected in skin tests or serum. These patients are considered to be afflicted with so-called "local allergic rhinitis" (LAR) with IgE-production exclusively at the site of the nasal mucosa. Patients without any positive allergy test results but seasonal (intermittent) or perennial (persistent) allergic symptoms were often misdiagnosed as having "non-allergic rhinitis" (NAR) in the past.However, there is evidence for a specific IgE-production in the nasal mucosa in these patients without systemic sensitization. The diagnosis of LAR is confirmed by clinical symptoms, the detection of specific IgE production in the nasal mucosa and/or nasal provocation tests.We report on two cases of LAR to Alternaria alternata with symptoms of persistent allergic rhinitis that have been diagnosed by positive allergenspecific nasal challenge tests and specific IgE determinations in nasal secretions.According to an actual literature research, this is the second report published on LAR caused by Alternaria alternata.

Capsaicin for non-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There are many forms of rhinitis. Patients are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis when anatomic, infectious and allergic aetiologies have been excluded. The symptoms, including nasal congestion, blockage or obstruction, clear rhinorrhoea, sneezing and, less frequently, nasal itching, can range from mild to debilitating. It affects between 25% and 50% of patients with rhinitis. Several medications are widely used in the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis, including oral and topical nasal antihistamines, intranasal and (rarely) systemic corticosteroids, and anticholinergics. Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, delivered intranasally, is considered a treatment option for non-allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of non-allergic rhinitis compared with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or two or more of the above therapies in combination, or different capsaicin regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 24 June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adult patients with non-allergic rhinitis comparing intranasal capsaicin with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or their combinations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (five publications) involving 302 participants with idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. All the included studies described patients with moderately severe, idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis who were between the ages of 16 and 65. Studies had follow-up periods ranging from four to 38 weeks. The overall risk of bias in the studies was either high or unclear (two studies had overall high risk of bias, while two others had low to unclear risk of bias). Using the GRADE system we assessed the evidence as being of low to moderate quality. A meta-analysis was not possible, given lack of similarity of the reported outcomes.Two studies compared capsaicin with placebo. One study reported that capsaicin resulted in an improvement of overall nasal symptoms (a primary outcome) measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10. There was a mean difference (MD) of -3.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.24 to -1.44), MD -3.73 (95% CI -5.45 to -2.01) and MD -3.52 (95% CI -5.55 to -1.48) at two, 12 and 36 weeks post-treatment, respectively. Another study reported that, compared to placebo, capsaicin (at 4 µg/puff) was more likely to produce overall symptom resolution (reduction in nasal blockage, sneezing/itching/coughing and nasal secretion measured with a daily record chart) at four weeks post-treatment (a primary outcome). The risk ratio (RR) was 3.17 (95% CI 1.38 to 7.29).One study compared capsaicin to budesonide (an intranasal corticosteroid). This study found that patients treated with capsaicin had a better overall symptom score compared to those treated with budesonide (MD 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.94, VAS of 0 to 10). However, there were no differences in the individual symptom scores for headache, postnasal drip, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, sneezing and sore throat assessed during the last three days of a four-week treatment.One study compared two different regimens of capsaicin administration: five treatments in one day versus five treatments given every two to three days during two weeks. Using daily record charts, the study reported significant improvement of individual symptom scores for rhinorrhoea in patients treated five times per day, however numerical data were not presented. There were no improvements in the other outcomes: rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, sneezing and overall nasal symptoms, measured on a VAS.Finally, one of these studies also compared three doses of capsaicin (to placebo). Patients treated with a 1 µg versus 4 µg per puff dose of capsaicin had a worse daily record chart overall symptom score resolution (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.16).Only one study attempted to measure adverse effects (a primary outcome), however due to methodological issues with the assessment we are unable to draw any conclusions.We sought to include other secondary outcomes (e.g. quality of life measures, treatment dropouts, endoscopic scores, turbinate or mucosal size, cost of therapy), but none of these were measured or reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Capsaicin may be an option in the treatment of idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. It is given in the form of brief treatments, usually during the same day. It appears to have beneficial effects on overall nasal symptoms up to 36 weeks after treatment, based on a few, small studies (low-quality evidence). Well-conducted randomised controlled trials are required to further advance our understanding of the effectiveness of capsaicin in non-allergic rhinitis, especially in patients with non-allergic rhinitis of different types and severity, and using different methods of capsaicin application.

Capsaicin for non-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There are many forms of rhinitis. Patients are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis when anatomic, infectious and allergic aetiologies have been excluded. The symptoms, including nasal congestion, blockage or obstruction, clear rhinorrhoea, sneezing and, less frequently, nasal itching, can range from mild to debilitating. It affects between 25% and 50% of patients with rhinitis. Several medications are widely used in the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis, including oral and topical nasal antihistamines, intranasal and (rarely) systemic corticosteroids, and anticholinergics. Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, delivered intranasally, is considered a treatment option for non-allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of non-allergic rhinitis compared with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or two or more of the above therapies in combination, or different capsaicin regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 24 June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adult patients with non-allergic rhinitis comparing intranasal capsaicin with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or their combinations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (five publications) involving 302 participants with idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. All the included studies described patients with moderately severe, idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis who were between the ages of 16 and 65. Studies had follow-up periods ranging from four to 38 weeks. The overall risk of bias in the studies was either high or unclear (two studies had overall high risk of bias, while two others had low to unclear risk of bias). Using the GRADE system we assessed the evidence as being of low to moderate quality. A meta-analysis was not possible, given lack of similarity of the reported outcomes.Two studies compared capsaicin with placebo. One study reported that capsaicin resulted in an improvement of overall nasal symptoms (a primary outcome) measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10. There was a mean difference (MD) of -3.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.24 to -1.44), MD -3.73 (95% CI -5.45 to -2.01) and MD -3.52 (95% CI -5.55 to -1.48) at two, 12 and 36 weeks post-treatment, respectively. Another study reported that, compared to placebo, capsaicin (at 4 µg/puff) was more likely to produce overall symptom resolution (reduction in nasal blockage, sneezing/itching/coughing and nasal secretion measured with a daily record chart) at four weeks post-treatment (a primary outcome). The risk ratio (RR) was 3.17 (95% CI 1.38 to 7.29).One study compared capsaicin to budesonide (an intranasal corticosteroid). This study found that patients treated with capsaicin had a better overall symptom score compared to those treated with budesonide (MD 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.94, VAS of 0 to 10). However, there were no differences in the individual symptom scores for headache, postnasal drip, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, sneezing and sore throat assessed during the last three days of a four-week treatment.One study compared two different regimens of capsaicin administration: five treatments in one day versus five treatments given every two to three days during two weeks. Using daily record charts, the study reported significant improvement of individual symptom scores for rhinorrhoea in patients treated five times per day, however numerical data were not presented. There were no improvements in the other outcomes: rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, sneezing and overall nasal symptoms, measured on a VAS.Finally, one of these studies also compared three doses of capsaicin (to placebo). Patients treated with a 1 µg versus 4 µg per puff dose of capsaicin had a worse daily record chart overall symptom score resolution (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.16).Only one study attempted to measure adverse effects (a primary outcome), however due to methodological issues with the assessment we are unable to draw any conclusions.We sought to include other secondary outcomes (e.g. quality of life measures, treatment dropouts, endoscopic scores, turbinate or mucosal size, cost of therapy), but none of these were measured or reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Capsaicin may be an option in the treatment of idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. It is given in the form of brief treatments, usually during the same day. It appears to have beneficial effects on overall nasal symptoms up to 36 weeks after treatment, based on a few, small studies (low-quality evidence). Well-conducted randomised controlled trials are required to further advance our understanding of the effectiveness of capsaicin in non-allergic rhinitis, especially in patients with non-allergic rhinitis of different types and severity, and using different methods of capsaicin application.

Phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis and their impact on management: a PRACTALL report

Rhinitis is an umbrella term that encompasses many different subtypes, several of which still elude complete characterization. The concept of phenotyping, being the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of clinical presentation, has been well established in the last decade. Classification of rhinitis entities on the basis of phenotypes has facilitated their characterization and has helped practicing clinicians to efficiently approach rhinitis patients. Recently, the concept of endotypes, that is, the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of underlying pathophysiology, has emerged. Phenotypes/endotypes are dynamic, overlapping, and may evolve into one another, thus rendering clear-cut definitions difficult. Nevertheless, a phenotype-/endotype-based classification approach could lead toward the application of stratified and personalized medicine in the rhinitis field. In this PRACTALL document, rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes are described, and rhinitis diagnosis and management approaches focusing on those phenotypes/endotypes are presented and discussed. We emphasize the concept of control-based management, which transcends all rhinitis subtypes.

Inhibition of capsaicin-driven nasal hyper-reactivity by SB-705498, a TRPV1 antagonist

AIMS

To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of intranasal SB-705498, a selective TRPV1 antagonist.

METHODS

Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical studies were performed: (i) an intranasal SB-705498 first time in human study to examine the safety and PK of five single escalating doses from 0.5 to 12 mg and of repeat dosing with 6 mg and 12 mg twice daily for 14 days and (ii) a PD efficacy study in subjects with non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) to evaluate the effect of 12 mg intranasal SB-705498 against nasal capsaicin challenge.

RESULTS

Single and repeat dosing with intranasal SB-705498 was safe and well tolerated. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar for SB-705498 and placebo and no dose-dependent increase was observed. Administration of SB-705498 resulted in less than dose proportional AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax , while repeat dosing from day 1 to day 14 led to its accumulation. SB-705498 receptor occupancy in nasal tissue was estimated to be high (>80%). Administration of 12 mg SB-705498 to patients with NAR induced a marked reduction in total symptom scores triggered by nasal capsaicin challenge. Inhibition of rhinorrhoea, nasal congestion and burning sensation was associated with 2- to 4-fold shift in capsaicin potency.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal SB-705498 has an appropriate safety and PK profile for development in humans and achieves clinically relevant attenuation of capsaicin-provoked rhinitis symptoms in patients with NAR. The potential impact intranasal SB-705498 may have in rhinitis treatment deserves further evaluation.

Molecular mechanisms of nasal epithelium in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis

Allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis are multifactorial upper airway diseases with high prevalence. Several genetic and environmental factors are proposed to predispose to the pathogenesis of the inflammatory upper airway diseases. Still, the molecular mechanisms leading toward the onset and progression of upper airway diseases are largely unknown. The upper airway epithelium has an important role in sensing the environment and regulating the inhaled air. As such, it links environmental insults to the host immunity. Human sinonasal epithelium serves as an excellent target for observing induced early-phase events, in vivo, and with a systems biological perspective. Actually, increasing number of investigations have provided evidence that altered homeostasis in the sinonasal epithelium might be important in the chronic upper airway inflammation.

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.

[Local (exclusive) IgE production in the nasal mucosa. Evidence for local allergic rhinitis]

BACKGROUND

IgE production at the site of the nasal mucosa without systemic allergic sensitization in skin tests or in serum represents so-called "local allergic rhinitis (LAR)" as a subgroup of patients with symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR). Formerly, in case of negative allergological test results, seasonal (intermittent) or perennial (persistent) allergic symptoms have been diagnosed as "non-allergic rhinitis" (NAR). However, there is evidence for specific Th2 cytokine, tryptase, and ECP (eosinophil catonic protein) production in the nasal secretion after allergen exposure in these patients without systemic sensitization.

DIAGNOSIS

Taking this into account, we recommend performing an allergen-specific nasal challenge and measuring the (local) nasal IgE-levels in addition to standard allergy tests in clinical routine in this subgroup of patients. These tests should be perfomed while or shortly after allergen exposure. In addition, an update of the allergy testing should be performed after a time interval since it has been demonstrated that patients formerly diagnosed with NAR may develop LAR or AR, or patients with LAR may develop AR in the future.

TREATMENT

The pharmacological therapeutic options in LAR are in line with the treatment of AR. If and to what extent this subgroup of AR patients benefit from allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is currently being evaluated in clinical trials.

Non allergic rhinitis: prevalence, clinical profile and knowledge gaps in literature

OBJECTIVES

Although Nasal symptoms induced by Non-allergic rhinitis| (NAR) are a cause of wide spread morbidity; the disease is trivialized. There is a lack of Epidemiological studies on the prevalence of non-allergic rhinitis. In spite of being one of the commonest conditions presenting to the General practitioner and otolaryngologists, the clinical profile, diagnosis, and management outcomes are unknown. The objectives of the study were to examine the prevalence and clinical profile of non-allergic rhinitis in Oman. Secondary objective was to identify Knowledge gaps in literature with the aim of directing future research.

METHODS

A cross sectional study of 610 consecutive adult patients presenting to the Ear, Nose and Throat clinic at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital is presented in this paper. The diagnosis of NAR was mainly based on step wise fashion; including a thorough clinical history and exclusion of other causes of rhinitis; all consecutive patients diagnosed with rhinitis (n=113) had a detailed history, nasal endoscopy, nasal smears, CT scans and an antihistamine response trial. The prevalence of NAR with its clinical profile was subsequently determined. Primary research articles and meta-analysis evaluated for the knowledge gap study were identified through MEDLINE search of English language literature published between 2000-2011.

RESULTS

A total of 610 consecutive patients were studied. The overall prevalence of rhinitis was 18.5% (n=113). The prevalence of NAR was 7.5% (n=46). Cases of allergic rhinitis (5.7%; n=35), Chronic rhinosinusitis (1.8%; n=11), and miscellaneous causes (3.4%; n=21) were excluded. Among the rhinitis population (n=113), the prevalence of NAR was 57% (n=46). The major presenting symptoms included nasal obstruction (93%; n=43), postnasal drainage (78%; n=36), and rhinorrhea (62%; n=29). For the knowledge gap study; 115 Medline titles were reviewed, four systematic reviews, and 34 research papers were reviewed. The text of two recent otolaryngology text books was also reviewed, and the main results of the study revealed the prevalence of NAR had not previously been studied in Oman. Although the recent text now clearly defines NAR, there is scant literature on the prevalence, diagnosis and management outcomes of NAR in the literature.

CONCLUSION

The study found that more than half of rhinitis patients suffered from NAR. There are no specific diagnostic tests for NAR; a thorough case history is the best diagnostic tool to date. A substantial knowledge gap exists in literature with relations to pathogenesis, clinical and laboratory diagnosis, as well as in reference to medical and surgical outcomes. Larger studies are required and management outcomes need to be studied.

Allergic rhinitis and non-allergic rhinitis in children in the tropics: prevalence and risk associations

BACKGROUND

The age-related comparative prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) in children is poorly defined. We aimed to characterize AR and NAR in children.

METHODS

This study enrolled children with chronic rhinitis who presented to a tertiary paediatric center for a diagnostic skin prick test (SPT). Parents completed a medical history questionnaire for their child, including disease activity for asthma and rhinitis. Sociodemographic data was obtained and all participants underwent a common inhalant SPT panel. A positive SPT indicated AR.

RESULTS

From March 2001 to March 2009, 6,660 children (64% male) were enrolled (aged 6 months to 19 years, mean 7.82 years). Only 3.7% (249) of the children were <2 years old, and almost 30% of these had AR. Most children with AR (73%) presented after age 6. Males were more likely to have AR (vs. NAR) (OR 1.5; CI 1.39-1.77). Antihistamine and salbutamol use did not differ between children with AR and NAR. Children with AR were more likely to require adjunct therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (51.2% vs. 43.2%, P < 0.001), have drug hypersensitivity (especially antipyretic drugs) (2.5% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.384) or an asthma admission (9.1% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AR is more common in male children, is relatively rare below the age of 2 years, and accounts for two-thirds of all childhood chronic rhinitis and 73.3% of all chronic rhinitis in school-aged children (≥6 years old). Children with AR have more severe rhinitis symptoms and more often suffer from asthma-related events and admissions.

Cytologic alterations in nasal mucosa after sphenopalatine artery ligation in patients with vasomotor rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Vasomotor rhinitis (VR) seems to be related to an imbalance between cholinergic and adrenergic activity in the autonomic nervous system. The nerve fibers of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems reach the nose through the posterior nasal nerve, which, after crossing the sphenopalatine foramen, distributes to the mucosa following the branches of the sphenopalatine vessels. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of sphenopalatine artery ligation on nasal function and nasal cytology in patients with VR.

METHODS

Thirty patients with VR and bilateral inferior turbinate hypertrophy (ITH) were randomly assigned to receive endoscopic inferior turbinoplasty either with or without sphenopalatine artery ligation. Pre- (baseline) and postsurgical (1-year follow-up) assessment included fiber endoscopy, active anterior rhinomanometry, measurement of mucociliary transport time (MTt), and nasal cytology examination.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up there was a statistically significant improvement in nasal resistances in both groups but not on intergroup comparison; MTt significantly decreased in both groups (p < 0.01) and was significantly better (p < 0.05) in the group that had undergone sphenopalatine artery ligation. Among the patients in this group, significantly fewer were found to have altered ciliated cells (p < 0.005) or a hyperchromatic supranuclear stria (p < 0.005) on nasal cytology; the differences were statistically significant also on intergroup comparison (p < 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with vasomotor rhinopathy and ITH, improvement in symptoms, nasal resistance, ciliated cell trophism, and MTt was observed after sphenopalatine artery ligation.

Short-time cold dry air exposure: a useful diagnostic tool for nasal hyperresponsiveness

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Demonstration of nasal hyperreactivity (NHR) in allergic and nonallergic rhinitis remains a diagnostic challenge because of the lack of a clinically attractive protocol with high sensitivity and specificity. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of a shortened cold dry air (CDA) provocation protocol for the diagnosis of NHR in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and idiopathic rhinitis (IR).

STUDY DESIGN

Twelve AR patients, 12 IR patients, and 12 controls were exposed to air at -10°C and <10% humidity for 15 minutes.

METHODS

Nasal symptoms were subjectively evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS), and nasal obstruction was objectively measured by peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) before and after CDA exposure. NHR was defined as a drop in PNIF larger than 20% from baseline upon CDA challenge.

RESULTS

Nasal CDA exposure induced nasal obstruction in AR and IR patients but not in controls. The VAS for nasal obstruction increased significantly in IR patients (post-CDA: 9.1 cm [6.9, 9.7] vs. pre-CDA: 5.5 cm [5.0, 8.9], P = .004) as well as in AR patients (post-CDA: 5.0 cm [1.3, 6.6] vs. pre-CDA: 0.8 cm [0.0, 1.7], P = .001). PNIF values showed a significant decrease in the AR (post-CDA: 50.0 L/min [37.5, 97.5] vs. pre-CDA: 95.0 L/min [52.5, 127.5], P = .002) and IR (post-CDA: 75.0 L/min [47.5, 102.5] vs. pre-CDA: 100.0 L/min [67.5, 130.0], P = .002) group after CDA provocation, which was not observed in the controls (P = 1.000). The sensitivity and specificity of CDA provocation for diagnosis of NHR were 66.7% and 100%, respectively, for both IR and AR. In contrast to nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea and sneezing were not induced by CDA exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a short nasal CDA exposure is a reliable method for the diagnosis of NHR in rhinitis patients, with a high sensitivity and specificity.

Septal injection of botulinum neurotoxin A for idiopathic rhinitis: a pilot study

PURPOSE

Botulinum neurotoxin A (BTA) is a promising therapeutic option in the treatment of idiopathic rhinitis (IR), a disease characterized by nasal obstruction and hydrous rhinorrhea. The conventional localization for the injection of BTA in IR is the nasal turbinates. In our own clinical experience, submucoperichondrial injection of BTA in the nasal septum is an alternative that is easy to perform for the therapist and also well tolerated by the patient.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five patients received an injection of in total 80 mouse units Dysport (Ipsen Pharma, Ettlingen, Germany) in the nasal septum. The unpleasantness of the nasal injection of BTA was measured on a visual analogue scale. Over the course of 14 days, nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, urge to sneeze, nasal pruritus), the number of facial tissues used daily, and possible complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

The unpleasantness of the injection of BTA into the nasal septum after local anesthesia was rated low (visual analogue scale, 0.76 on average). A good subjective symptom control was achieved in 3 patients concerning rhinorrhea and in all patients concerning nasal obstruction. The number of facial tissues used daily as a parameter for rhinorrhea was on average 21.0 before the injection of BTA, decreased in 4 patients over the course of time, and was on average 5.8 after 14 days. No patient reported any adverse effects after the injection of BTA.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates that septal injection of BTA in patients with IR can achieve good symptom control and patient comfort and should be compared in further studies to the conventional turbinal injection technique.

Regulatory-T, T-helper 1, and T-helper 2 cell differentiation in nasal mucosa of allergic rhinitis with olive pollen sensitivity

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a disease in which T-helper (Th)2 response is predominant and its pathogenic mechanism is still poorly understood.

AIM

To evaluate the possible role of Th1, Th2 and regulatory-T (Treg) cells in the pathogenesis of AR.

METHODS

This case-control study enrolled 41 patients with seasonal AR (10-62 years old), sensitive to olive pollens, and 15 healthy controls (18-60 years old). Nasal biopsy was performed and specimens of nasal lavage fluid were obtained from all participants. The levels of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-10, interferon (IFN)-γ and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) were measured in nasal lavage fluid specimens. The expression of FOXP3, GATA-3 and T-bet was measured by immunohistochemical methods in the nasal biopsy specimens.

RESULTS

The levels of IFN-γ in the group with AR were significantly lower than those in the control group (p = 0.008). The levels of IL-4, IL-10 and TGF-β did not differ between the two groups. The expression of FOXP3 and T-bet in patients with AR was significantly lower than that in the control group (both p = 0.001). Expression of GATA-3 in the nasal mucosa was similar between the groups (p = 0.2). The ratios of T-bet/GATA-3 and FOXP3/GATA-3 in the AR group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Insufficient Treg and Th1 cells may be associated with the allergic inflammation that may be attributed to the Th2 immune response in patients suffering from AR who are sensitive to olive pollen.

What are the primary clinical symptoms of rhinitis and what causes them?

The nose has a limited repertoire of responses regardless of the triggers. These responses primarily serve as a protective mechanism for the lower respiratory tract. Although the nasal reactions to pollens, particles, and pollution may have a beneficial effect for the lower airway, they create symptoms in some individuals that lead to significant morbidity. The symptoms of allergic rhinitis extend far beyond the nose, and the morbidity associated with rhinitis is significant. The nasal symptoms of rhinitis and their causes are the focus of this review.

Diversity of immunoglobulin E-encoding transcripts in sinus mucosa of subjects diagnosed with non-allergic fungal eosinophilic sinusitis

BACKGROUND

The role of allergy in the aetiopathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) remains controversial. For example, in some cases with sinus fungal infections allergy can be demonstrated by standard tests. In other cases, such signs can be absent despite elevated levels of IgE-positive cells in sinus tissue and the presence of IgE and eosinophils in the sinus mucous.

OBJECTIVE

To define the nature of molecular diversity in antibodies of the IgE isotype at the site of local inflammation in subjects diagnosed with non-allergic fungal eosinophilic sinusitis (NAFES).

METHODS

The local occurrence and sequence characteristics of IgE-encoding transcripts in NAFES patients were investigated and compared with sequences found in subjects diagnosed with CRS featuring systemic allergy. These sequences have also been compared with other reported IgE-encoding transcriptomes. Results IGHV genes derived from major subgroups 1, 3, 4 and 5 and a diverse set of IGHD and IGHJ genes were shown to create the IgE repertoire in patients diagnosed with NAFES and CRS. The average lengths of the third hypervariable loop in these populations were 15.8 and 14.6 residues. The sequences showed evidence of extensive somatic hypermutation (mutation frequency: NAFES, 6.4 ± 3.2%; CRS, 7.0 ± 4.4%) with substitutions targeted to complementarity-determining regions. These sequence collections thus show extensive similarities to those found in other polyclonal Ig repertoires including those encoding IgE.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We conclude that sinus IgE-encoding transcripts in subjects diagnosed with NAFES show evidence of conventional IgE responses and we suggest that allergens with characteristics of classical antigens should be investigated for a role in the local response occurring in NAFES. This investigation illustrates that assessment of local immunity might be an important diagnostic tool in conditions like NAFES with no systemic signs of allergy to identify or rule out an allergic component of the patient's disease.

Clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes of patients with localized mucosal allergy

BACKGROUND

Many researchers have focused on the definition and pathophysiology of localized mucosal allergy. However, there are few studies on its clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes. The goal of this study was to analyze the prevalence, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and response to antiallergic medication of localized mucosal allergy patients compared with those in patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Among 836 patients suspected to have rhinitis, 29 patients with localized mucosal allergy (group A) and 29 patients with allergic rhinitis (group B) were selected. Medical history, family history, symptoms, and their severity were obtained using a questionnaire. The change in minimal cross-sectional area (MCA) after provocation was measured by acoustic rhinometry. After 2 weeks of antihistamine medication, the changes in symptoms were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The prevalence of localized mucosal allergy was approximately 3.5%. There were no differences in patient history, symptoms, or symptom severity. The decrease in MCA after provocation was not significantly different. After two weeks of oral antihistamine (ebastine 10 mg once daily), group A reported significantly less symptom improvement than group B.

CONCLUSION

Because patient or family history and clinical picture are very similar in localized mucosal allergy and allergic rhinitis, clinicians should take more care in differentiating them. Based on the reduced effectiveness of an oral antihistamine alone, a combined regimen of oral and topical antihistamine or anti-inflammatory medication is recommended for patients with localized mucosal allergy.

Rhinorrhea: a common nondopaminergic feature of Parkinson's disease

We compared the frequency of rhinorrhea between 34 Parkinson's disease (PD) subjects and 15 normal controls (NC) and explored relationships between rhinorrhea and clinical functions, and degree of nigrostriatal dopaminergic denervation using [(11)C]dihydrotetrabenazine (DTBZ) brain positron emission tomography imaging. Sixty-eight percent (23 of 34) of PD subjects reported rhinorrhea of any cause compared with 27% (4 of 15) of NC (χ(2) = 7.07, P = 0.008). Rhinorrhea frequency remained higher in the PD group after excluding possible rhinitic etiologies: 35% (12 of 34) of PD versus 7% (1 of 15) of NC (χ(2) = 4.38, P = 0.04). There were no differences in demographics, nigrostriatal dopaminergic denervation, and clinical motor or nonmotor variables between PD subjects with and without rhinorrhea, except that more PD subjects with rhinorrhea complained of lightheadedness (52% vs. 9%, χ(2) = 5.85, P = 0.02). Rhinorrhea is a common nondopaminergic feature of PD, unrelated to olfactory or motor deficits. Further investigations are needed to determine if rhinorrhea correlates with sympathetic denervation or other autonomic symptoms in PD.

Vasomotor rhinitis

Vasomotor rhinitis is a common disorder that is seen routinely in allergy practice. It affects millions of Americans and results in significant morbidity. The pathophysiology of this complex heterogeneous disorder is unknown, but we are making advances in this regard. Symptoms and signs can closely resemble those of allergic rhinitis and can be difficult to differentiate from those resulting from allergy. A careful history, physical examination, and diagnostic testing help clinicians arrive at a definitive diagnosis, but treatment can be challenging. Therapy should be based on the presenting symptoms of vasomotor rhinitis. Combination therapy with topical corticosteroids and azelastine is useful. However, in patients whose predominant symptom is rhinorrhea, use of atopical anticholinergic agents can be quite useful. Up-to-date pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment approaches are discussed in this review.