Contribution of neurogenic and allergic ways to the pathophysiology of nonallergic rhinitis

Anti-inflammatory effect of dictamnine on allergic rhinitis via suppression of the LYN kinase-mediated molecular signaling pathway during mast cell activation

Mast cells (MCs) are important therapeutic targets for allergic diseases. High-affinity immunoglobulin E (IgE) Fc receptors (FcεRI) trigger abnormal activation of MCs. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated antigen inhalation reaction that occurs in the nasal mucosa. MC aggravation and dysfunction were observed during the early stages of AR pathogenesis. Herb-derived dictamnine exhibits anti-inflammatory effects. Here, we investigated the pharmacological effects of herb-derived dictamnine on IgE-induced activation of MCs and an ovalbumin (OVA)-induced murine AR model. The results indicated that dictamnine attenuated OVA-induced local allergic reactions and reduced body temperature in OVA-challenged mice with active systemic anaphylaxis. Additionally, dictamnine decreased the frequency of nasal rubbing and sneezing in an OVA-induced murine AR model. Moreover, dictamnine inhibited FcεRI-activated MC activation in a dose-dependent manner without causing cytotoxicity, reduced the activation of the tyrosine kinase LYN in LAD2 cells, and downregulated the phosphorylation of PLCγ1, IP3R, PKC, Erk1/2, and Akt, which are downstream of LYN. In conclusion, dictamnine suppressed the OVA-stimulated murine model of AR and activated IgE-induced MCs via the LYN kinase-mediated molecular signaling pathway, suggesting that dictamnine may be a promising treatment for AR.

Acupuncture and its effect on cytokine and chemokine profiles in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a preliminary three-armed, randomized, controlled trial

Purpose

Numerous studies have demonstrated effectiveness for acupuncture in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). However, the underlying mechanism remains still unclear.

Methods

29 SAR patients were recruited from a large randomized, controlled trial investigating the efficacy of acupuncture in SAR. 16 patients were treated by acupuncture plus rescue medication (RM, cetirizine), 6 patients received sham acupuncture plus RM and 8 patients RM alone over 8 weeks. Patients were blinded to the allocation to real or sham acupuncture. At baseline and different time-points during intervention, plasma and nasal concentration of mediators of various biological functions were determined in addition to validated disease-specific questionnaires.

Results

The concentration of biomarkers related to the Th1-, Th2-, and Treg-cluster was not changed in patients who received acupuncture, in neither plasma nor nasal fluid. However, with respect to eotaxin and some unspecific pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1b, IL-8, IP-10, MIP-1b, MCP-1), acupuncture led to a, partially significantly, lower nasal concentration than sham acupuncture or RM. Furthermore, the nasal symptom score was significantly reduced in patients only after real acupuncture.

Conclusion

In SAR, acupuncture reduces the intranasal unspecific inflammation, but does not seem to act immunologically on the Th1–Th2-imbalance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00405-022-07335-5.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Positive allergen reaction in allergic and nonallergic rhinitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR) is based on cutaneous and serological assessment to determine immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated disease. However, discrepancies between these tests and nasal provocation exist. Patients diagnosed as non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) but with positive nasal allergen provocation test (NAPT) may represent a local allergic condition or entopy, still suitable to allergy interventions. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of nasal reactivity toward allergens among AR and NAR patients, and to describe the diagnostic characteristics of NAPT methodologies.

METHODS

EMBASE (1947-) and Medline (1946-) were searched until December 8, 2015. A search strategy was used to identify studies on AR or NAR patients subjected to diagnostic local nasal provocation. All studies providing original NAPT data among the AR or NAR population were included. Meta-analysis of proportion data was presented as a weighted probability % (95% confidence interval [CI]).

RESULTS

The search yielded 4504 studies and 46 were included. The probability of nasal allergen reactivity for the AR population was 86.3% (95% CI, 84.4 to 88.1) and in NAR was 24.7% (95% CI, 22.3 to 27.2). Reactivity was high with pollen for both AR 97.1% (95% CI, 94.2 to 99.2) and NAR 47.5% (95% CI, 34.8 to 60.4), and lowest with dust for both AR 79.1% (95% CI, 76.4 to 81.6) and NAR 12.2% (95% CI, 9.9 to 14.7). NAPT yielded high positivity when defined by subjective end-points: AR 91.0% (95% CI, 86.6 to 94.8) and NAR 30.2% (95% CI, 22.9 to 37.9); and lower with objective end-points: AR 80.8% (95% CI, 76.8 to 84.5) and NAR 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2 to 17.2).

CONCLUSION

Local allergen reactivity is demonstrated in 26.5% of patients previously considered non-allergic. Similarly, AR, when defined by skin-prick test (SPT) or serum specific IgE (sIgE), may lead to 13.7% of patients with inaccurate allergen sensitization or non-allergic etiologies.

Non-allergic rhinitis in children: Epidemiological aspects, pathological features, diagnostic methodology and clinical management

Chronic rhinitis is a very common disease, as the prevalence in the general population resulted to be 40%. Allergic rhinitis has been considered to be the most frequent form of chronic rhinitis, as non-allergic rhinitis has been estimated to account for 25%. However, several evidences suggested that non-allergic rhinitis have been underrated, especially in children. In pediatrics, the diagnostic definition of non-allergic rhinitis has been often limited to the exclusion of an allergic sensitization. Actually, local allergic rhinitis has been often misdiagnosed as well as mixed rhinitis has not been recognized in most cases. Nasal cytology is a diagnostic procedure being suitable for routine clinical practice with children and could be a very useful tool to characterize and diagnose non-allergic rhinitis, providing important clues for epidemiological analysis and clinical management.

Identification and Prevalence of Allergic, Nonallergic, and Local Allergic Rhinitis Patients in Western Area, Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic yield of skin prick test (SPT) and serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies level in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and the role of nasal provocation test (NPT) for the determination of local allergic rhinitis (LAR) in patients with nonallergic rhinitis (NAR).

METHODOLOGY

This multi-center study included 1230 patients with clinical manifestations for ≥2 years. Patients were classified according to the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and scored according to the quantitative Score for Allergic Rhinitis (SFAR). The SPT and total IgE antibody levels were done for all patients. Patients gave negative SPT underwent NPT, and its result was interpreted using Lebel Symptom Score Scale.

RESULTS

The SPT was positive in 77.8% of patients, mostly for grass pollen and dust mites. All patients were sensitive to multiple allergens. Median serum IgE antibody level for total study population was 162 IU/ml. Forty-two patients (3.4%) with negative SPT showed a weak response to NPT, while 231 patients (18.7%) with negative SPT had a high response to NPT and were considered to have LAR.

CONCLUSION

The SPT could discriminate between AR and NAR patients. The NPT could identify LAR in 84.6% of patients with rhinitis among those considered as NAR.