Nasal obstruction and rhinorrhea reflect nonspecific nasal hyper-reactivity as evaluated by cold dry air provocation

The mystery of dry indoor air - An overview

"Dry air" is a major and abundant indoor air quality complaint in office-like environments. The causality of perceived "dry air" and associated respiratory effects continues to be debated, despite no clear definition of the complaint, yet, has been provided. The perception of "dry air" is semantically confusing without an associated receptor but mimics a proto-state of sensory irritation like a cooling sensation. "Dry air" may also be confused with another common indoor air quality complaint "stuffy air", which mimics the sense of no fresh air and of nasal congestion. Low indoor air humidity (IAH) was dismissed more than four decades ago as cause of "dry air" complaints, rather indoor pollutants was proposed as possible exacerbating causative agents during the cold season. Many studies, however, have shown adverse effects of low IAH and beneficial effects of elevated IAH. In this literature overview, we try to answer, "What is perceived "dry air" in indoor environments and its associated causalities. Many studies have shown that the perception is caused not only by extended exposure to low IAH, but also simultaneously with and possibly exacerbated by indoor air pollutants that aggravate the protective mucous layer in the airways and the eye tear film. Immanent diseases in the nose and airways in the general population may also contribute to the overall complaint rate and including other risk factors like age of the population, use of medication, and external factors like the local ambient humidity. Low IAH may be the single cause of perceived "dry air" in the elderly population, while certain indoor air pollutants may come into play among susceptible people, in addition to baseline contribution of nasal diseases. Thus, perceived "dry air" intercorrelates with dry eyes and throat, certain indoor air pollutants, ambient humidity, low IAH, and nasal diseases.

Nasal provocation test using allergen extract versus cold dry air provocation test: which and when?

BACKGROUND

Nasal provocation tests (NPTs) are useful for evaluation of patients with allergic rhinitis. The cold dry air (CDA) provocation test is useful for evaluation of patients with nonspecific nasal hyperreactivity (NHR). This study aimed to determine whether the NPT or CDA provocation would be more useful for patients with different clinical pictures.

METHODS

We evaluated changes in nasal symptoms (visual analog scale [VAS]) and acoustic parameters after NPT or CDA provocation in healthy volunteers (group A, n = 27), patients with allergic rhinitis (group B, n = 20), and subjects with nonallergic rhinitis (group C, n = 26). According to their subjective cold hyperresponsiveness (SCH), we compared changes in VAS and acoustic parameters after each protocol. The correlation between results of the skin-prick test (SPT) and changes in VAS after each protocol was analyzed. Finally, we performed an analysis of correlation between NPT and CDA provocation.

RESULTS

After NPT, group B showed a larger change in VAS for rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching (p < 0.01). After CDA challenge, the change in VAS for nasal obstruction was larger in group C (p < 0.05). Changes in acoustic parameters were larger in groups B and C after NPT (p < 0.01). After CDA challenge, the SCH(+) group (n = 49) showed a larger decrease of acoustic parameters than the SCH(-) group (n = 24; p < 0.01). Significant correlation was observed between the size of SPT and degree of change in VAS after NPT. No significant correlation was observed between NPT and CDA.

CONCLUSION

CDA could be an adjunct tool for evaluating NHR in patients with self-reported SCH.