Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Rhinitis”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1986

[Clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of non-allergic forms of rhinitis: non-allergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome and vasomotor rhinitis].

Two clinical syndromes of non-allergic rhinitis -- NARES and vasomotor rhinitis -- were studied. In recent years there has been a moderate statistical increase in both conditions which are still not easily diagnosed or treated, given the fact that they are often confused with allergic rhinitis. In this context a brief review of aetiopathogenic and physiopathological factors is followed by the suggestion of certain elements that may be assessed in order to obtain a more correct classification and diagnosis. Finally the drugs providing a more effective and long-lasting cure are listed.

Aerosols↗
PubMed2005

Seasonal non-allergic rhinitis (SNAR)--a new disease entity? A clinical and immunological comparison between SNAR, seasonal allergic rhinitis and persistent non-allergic rhinitis.

We have earlier described a group of patients suffering from rhino-conjunctivitis during the early pollen season, but with negative allergological investigation. The present study aimed to evaluate this syndrome called Seasonal Non-Allergic Rhinitis (SNAR). Seventeen patients with SNAR were compared with 20 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and 13 patients with persistent non-allergic rhinitis (PNAR). They were analyzed with skin prick tests (SPT) and nasal provocation tests (NPT) with pollen extracts, and for IgE antibodies in serum and inflammation mediators in nasal lavage. Daily symptoms and medicine consumption were recorded. Late reactions after SPT occurred in two SNAR, eight SAR and two PNAR patients. Weak immediate and late reactions after NPT were induced in 3/15 and 7/15 SNAR patients, respectively, and in 1/13 and 5/13 PNAR patients. All SAR patients had immediate and 9/18 had late reactions. The total IgE levels were lower in SNAR compared to SAR. In the SNAR group 1/15 was positive in Phadiatop. Increased tryptase levels after NPT were only observed in SAR. The SNAR patients had high daily symptom scores already before birch pollen season. Sneezing was more common in SNAR and SAR than in PNAR; eye-symptoms more prominent in SAR than in SNAR or PNAR. SNAR seems to be different from SAR and PNAR regarding immunological mechanism and symptom period. We conclude that the cause of SNAR is unknown.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Sputum eosinophilia and maximal airway narrowing in Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus allergic rhinitis patients: only rhinitis or rhinitis plus mild asthma?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the existence of bronchial disease among rhinitis patients. To evaluate the laboratory test or set of tests (ie, symptoms, exposure, and sensitization to the allergen, and the provocative dose of methacholine [Mth] causing a 20% fall in FEV(1) [PD(20)] and the maximal response plateau [MRP] to Mth) that best identifies a case of mild asthma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis in 52 Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus-monosensitized patients who were consulting a physician for perennial rhinitis. SETTING: Allergy Department, Hospital Doctor Negrín, Las Palmas, Grand Canary Island, Spain. INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS: Patients filled out a standardized asthma symptom questionnaire, and underwent sputum induction and Mth challenge in which 40% falls in FEV(1) were attained. Dose-response curves were expressed in terms of both PD(20) values and the level of the MRP. D pteronyssinus allergen exposure was assessed in dust samples from patients' beds. RESULTS: No difference between patients who positively responded to the questionnaire and those who did not was observed. Mth-PD(20) values were not detected in 13% of the patients reporting bronchial symptoms, and an MRP was not identified in 59% of the subjects who did not respond positively. A higher degree of allergen sensitization (ascertained from skin test results, and total and specific serum IgE levels) and higher degree of sputum eosinophilia were detected in subjects in whom an MRP had not been identified. The presence of sputum eosinophilia provided the best differentiation between those patients who presented with an MRP and those who did not. CONCLUSION: The individual perception of bronchial symptoms is highly variable among perennial allergic rhinitis patients. The lack of a maximal airway-narrowing plateau is related to the presence of sputum eosinophilia, which might be useful in the detection of patients susceptible to anti-inflammatory therapy. Prospective studies evaluating whether these patients are more likely to develop symptomatic asthma in the future and if the early anti-inflammatory treatment prevents its development are needed.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Sequential therapy with azelastine in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Deutsche Rhinitis Studiengruppe (German Rhinitis Study Group).

A sequential therapy treatment with azelastine (Allergodil) in seasonal allergic rhinitis is introduced. In the critical early stage, treatment begins with a combination of azelastine tablets (azelastine hydrochloride, CAS 79307-93-0) and azelastine nasal spray (azelastine, CAS 58581-89-8), and after five days only the nasal spray is administered. This sequential therapy model aims at achieving the quickest and most complete effect without reducing the tolerability. The investigation was carried out as a randomized, controlled double-blind phase IV study of parallel group design with 300 patients during 14 days. In the first five days, one group was given one puff (0.14 mg) of azelastine nasal spray twice daily and one 2 mg tablet of azelastine at night. The other group received nasal spray and a placebo tablet. Beginning on day six, both groups received nasal spray only. Both treatments proved to be effective; the combination therapy, however, was significantly more effective beginning as early as the first treatment. The superiority of the combination therapy increased until day five. Thereafter, the two curves grew closer together; however, the superiority of the combination treatment remained. The tolerability of both treatments was similar.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Open-label evaluation of azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of azelastine (Astelin) nasal spray, a topical second-generation antihistamine, in the treatment of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis with nonallergic triggers (mixed rhinitis), and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 2343 primary care physicians, allergists, ENT specialists, and other health professionals participated in this 2-week, open-label evaluation of azelastine nasal spray. Data were collected through a physician questionnaire that included patient demographics, rhinitis diagnosis, medication history, and inclusion/exclusion criteria; and two patient questionnaires that included symptom history, response to previous rhinitis medications, symptom control, and level of satisfaction with azelastine nasal spray. A completed physician questionnaire and two completed patient questionnaires were required for each patient to be included in the analysis. Patients who qualified for enrollment were given open-label azelastine nasal spray and instructed to administer 2 sprays per nostril twice daily for 2 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1225 health professionals enrolled 7864 patients into the study. Completed physician and patient questionnaires were returned by 1081 health professionals and 5073 patients, 4364 of whom used azelastine nasal spray as their only rhinitis medication during the 2-week study period. The patients were predominantly caucasian (82.6%) and female (61.1%), with a mean age of 50 years. The majority had a diagnosis of mixed rhinitis (51.5%), followed by seasonal allergic rhinitis (32.3%), and nonallergic (vasomotor) rhinitis (16.2%). After 2 weeks of treatment, the percentage of patients reporting some control or complete control of individual symptoms ranged from 78% for postnasal drip in patients with nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis to 90% for sneezing in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. More than 85% of patients who reported difficulty sleeping or impairment of daytime activities due to rhinitis symptoms had improvement in these parameters. Azelastine nasal spray was well tolerated, the discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 2.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Azelastine nasal spray was reported to control all rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion, regardless of rhinitis diagnosis during the 2-week study period. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis plus nonallergic triggers were identified as patient types most likely to respond to azelastine nasal spray.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed2006

Rhinitis symptoms and IgE sensitization as risk factors for development of later allergic rhinitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Rhinitis symptoms and IgE-sensitization often mismatch. Asymptomatic sensitization is an established risk factor for later rhinitis, whereas it is not clear whether rhinitis is a risk factor for later development of IgE-sensitization. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether nonallergic rhinitis is a risk factor for later development of IgE-sensitization in adults during an 8-year follow-up period, and whether asymptomatic sensitization is a risk factor for later development of rhinitis. METHODS: In a population-based study of 15-69 years olds in 1990, 734 subjects were re-examined in 1998. On both occasions questionnaires on rhinitis symptoms were completed and serum IgE (against birch, grass, mugwort, cat, dog, and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) were determined (positive if >or=0.35 kUA/l). Asymptomatic sensitization: positive IgE levels without any rhinitis symptoms. Nonallergic rhinitis: rhinitis symptoms and no sensitization. RESULTS: Asymptomatic sensitization to pollens, pets, or house dust mite was significantly associated with onset of rhinitis symptoms, also when changing baseline cut-off for sensitization to >or=0.1 or >or=0.7 kUA/l. The 8-year incidence of pollen-related rhinitis was 15.1% and 2.6% in subjects sensitized and nonsensitized to pollens, respectively (odds ratio 6.1, 95% CI 2.3-16.0). Persistent or intermittent nonallergic rhinitis was not significantly associated with later sensitization, yet a positive trend for development was observed in nonallergic pollen-related rhinitis. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic sensitization but not nonallergic rhinitis was a significant risk factor for later development of allergic rhinitis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Assessing and treating rhinitis. A practical guide for Canadian physicians. Proceedings of the Canadian Rhinitis Symposium. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. January 14-15, 1994.

OBJECTIVES: Rhinitis is an extremely common health problem in Canada and is a heterogeneous disorder, which may manifest with a variety of different clinical presentations and secondary complications. This document Assessing and Treating Rhinitis: A Practical Guide for Canadian Physicians has been developed to assist family physicians and specialists who assess and treat patients with rhinitis and its complications. OPTIONS: This guide provides an overview of the pathogenesis and key clinical features of the different types of rhinitis, as well as diagnostic tests that are available. Management strategies including patient information, pharmacotherapy, immunotherapy, and the role of surgical therapy in the treatment of rhinitis and its complications are reviewed. OUTCOMES: Symptoms of rhinitis have variable effects on our patients' health, ranging from minor irritation to significant morbidity with loss of time from work and school. Although the pathophysiology of many types of rhinitis is unknown, an accurate diagnosis is necessary, since not all types of rhinitis will respond to the same treatment measures. EVIDENCE: This guide is an edited review of presentations and discussions held by specialists in allergy, clinical immunology and otolaryngology who participated in the Canadian Rhinitis Symposium in Toronto, Ontario on January 14 and 15, 1994. VALUES: The value of a given diagnostic test or treatment option was determined based on the clinical experience and opinions of the specialists at the Symposium and a review of the literature. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: This document was designed to provide an overview of the most effective clinical approaches to the assessment and treatment of rhinitis. The clinical judgment of the practising clinician, however, must always be incorporated into any diagnostic or therapeutic decision. RECOMMENDATIONS: An accurate diagnosis of the type of rhinitis is necessary for treatment success. In treatment, all patients, regardless of the type of rhinitis, benefit from education concerning their condition. Each patient requires a customized approach to the management of their rhinitis, which may include pharmacotherapy, immunotherapy, and surgical therapy. VALIDATION: This guide was developed by the faculty and reviewed by the participants at the Canadian Rhinitis Symposium. As might be expected, these experts with different areas of interest and from different countries did not always have complete congruence of opinions. We believe, however, that this guide is a fair representation of the prevailing opinions expressed by the Symposium faculty and participants. SPONSOR: The Canadian Rhinitis Symposium, as well as technical support and assistance in manuscript preparation by the staff of Core Communications, were funded by an educational grant from Glaxo Canada Inc.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

Pathophysiological features of the nasal mucosa in patients with idiopathic rhinitis compared to allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: The literature on abnormality of vasomotor responses of the nasal mucosa to cold stimulation of the skin in idiopathic rhinitis is conflicting. The objective of this study was to elucidate pathophysiological features of the nasal mucosa in idiopathic rhinitis compared to allergic rhinitis. METHODS: The following were studied in patients with idiopathic rhinitis and allergic rhinitis and in normal controls: (1) threshold of the nasal reaction to histamine; (2) inflammatory cells in nasal lavage and scraped nasal mucosal epithelium, and (3) nasal vasomotor response to cold stimulation of the feet evaluated by acoustic rhinometry. RESULTS: Inflammatory cells were not found to be involved in idiopathic rhinitis. Nasal reactivity to histamine was significantly enhanced in patients with idiopathic rhinitis compared to normal controls, but was significantly lower compared to those with allergic rhinitis. The most prominent finding in idiopathic rhinitis was nasal mucosal swelling induced by cold stimulation of the feet. While in normal controls, cold stimulation of the feet caused mucosal contraction due to sympathetic excitation, sympathetic nasal vasomotor response in idiopathic rhinitis patients was significantly inhibited and caused mucosal swelling and enhanced nasal secretion. Mucosal reactions observed in allergic rhinitis were between those observed in idiopathic rhinitis and in normal controls. Cold stimulation of the feet increased systolic blood pressure by 5-15 mm Hg, but the degree of increase observed in the 3 groups was almost equal. CONCLUSIONS: The above findings indicate that patients with idiopathic rhinitis have abnormalities that inhibit sympathetic reactions and enhance parasympathetic vasomotor response at peripheral levels, possibly in the nasal mucosa.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Stronger nasal responsiveness to cold air in individuals with rhinitis and asthma, compared with rhinitis alone.

BACKGROUND: We have previously proposed that, compared with rhinitis alone, the constellation of upper and lower airway allergic disease is a manifestation of a more severe form of a syndrome affecting the entire airway. If this is correct, not only the lower, but also the upper airways of patients with asthma and rhinitis should demonstrate more abnormalities compared with patients with rhinitis alone, including higher sensitivity to irritant factors. Objective To test the hypothesis that, a previously well-studied natural nasal stimulus, cold, dry air (CDA), produces a stronger response in subjects with allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma compared with subjects with AR alone. METHODS: We performed nasal provocation with CDA on 24 individuals with asthma and rhinitis and 17 with rhinitis alone. Prior to and after the challenge, nasal symptoms were recorded using visual analogue scales and nasal lavages were performed to determine histamine and lysozyme levels. RESULTS: The two groups reacted differently to CDA: after the challenge, patients with rhinitis and asthma reported significantly higher scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea and lacrimation. Also in this group, significant increases in histamine and in lysozyme levels in nasal lavage fluids were induced by CDA. In subjects with rhinitis alone, CDA failed to increase histamine or lysozyme levels above baseline. The CDA-induced change from baseline in histamine was significantly higher in the patients with rhinitis and asthma, compared with the rhinitis-only group. CONCLUSION: Patients with AR and asthma have stronger nasal responsiveness to CDA compared with patients with rhinitis alone. This observation is consistent with the notion that compared with rhinitis alone, the presence of asthma and rhinitis signifies a higher degree of functional abnormality of the entire airway.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood: validation of the rhinitis symptom questionnaire and prevalence of rhinitis in schoolchildren in São Paulo, Brazil.

Written questionnaires (WQ) have been widely used in epidemiologic studies. In order to yield comparable results, they must be validated after translation to another language. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) WQ has been previously validated by a comprehensive study, but its validation in Brazil has not been performed. Our objectives were to validate the rhinitis component of the ISAAC's self-applicable WQ following its translation to Portuguese, and to determine the prevalence of rhinitis and related symptoms among Brazilian children living in the city of São Paulo. A group of 10 pediatricians and 10 pediatric allergists graded the questions from 0 to 2 and established a maximum score for each question. The WQ was answered by parents or guardians of children 6-7 years of age with rhinitis (R) (n = 27) and of control children of the same age without rhinitis (C) (n = 27). The WQ was also completed by adolescents 13-14 years of age with rhinitis (R) (n = 32) and without rhinitis (C) (n = 32). Half of these individuals answered the same WQ after 2-4 weeks, to ensure reproducibility. Cut-off scores of 4 and 3 were identified for the 6-7- and 13-14-year-old groups, respectively, as scores predictive of rhinitis. The prevalence of rhinitis was 28.8% in the group of 3005 children 6-7 years of age and 31.7% in the group of 3008 children 13-14 years of age, respectively. Using the global cut-off score, these prevalences were even higher, in the order of 34.7% and 40.7%, respectively. In conclusion, the rhinitis component of the ISAAC WQ was proven to be reproducible, adequate and able to discriminate children and adolescents with and without rhinitis, and revealed that the prevalence of rhinitis among Brazilian children living in the city of São Paulo was as high as the prevalence of rhinitis in other areas of the world.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

[Differentiation between allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis by electrophoretic evaluation of the protein in pituita].

Application of trichloro-acetic acid (TCA) to the inferior turbinates is being performed at our hospital to treat allergic rhinitis. However, some patients have continous rhinorrhea even though the provocation test after treatment was negative. Electrophoretic studies were performed on the nasal discharge of such continuous rhinorrhea patients to analyze its protein components, albumin and 23kD protein. The results showed that the pituita in the unimproved cases with negative provocation result was similar in nature to the pituita in vasomotor rhinitis patients. It was concluded that the proteins in the pituita were not attributable to an antigen-antibody reaction, because the provocation test was negative, but they were the result of angiogenic factors (= vasomotor rhinitis). Thus it appears that allergic rhinitis can be classified into two types: genuine allergic rhinitis and allergic rhinitis associated with vasomotor rhinitis. TCA therapy was not effective in the cases of allergic rhinitis with vasomotor rhinitis, because they had a pathophysiological feature of vasomotor rhinitis. Genuine allergic rhinitis can be differentiated from vasomotor rhinitis clinically by measuring albumin and 23kD protein in pituita. It was concluded that measurement of 23kD protein concentrations in pituita is effective for determining indications for TCA chemotherapy and evaluating its clinical results.

Albumins↗
PubMed2003

[Comparison of the mucociliary transport rate of rhinitis sicca and atrophic rhinitis].

OBJECTIVE: To study the mucociliary transport function of rhinitis sicca and atrophic rhinitis, and to explore the standard of diagnosis. METHOD: The MTR of normal control group, the rhinitis sicca group and the atrophic rhinitis were determined by using saccharin, and then compared. Then MTR of rhinitis sicca treatment group were compared before and after treatment. RESULT: The MTR of normal group: (9.15 +/- 0.86) mm/min; the rhinitis sicca group: (5.84 +/- 0.48) mm/min and the atrophic rhinitis group: (3.36 +/- 0.07) mm/min. There were significant difference among them (P < 0.05). 25 patients of rhinitis sicca were treated by administering the pill of Gelomyrtol forte in 2 weeks. The MTR of rhinitis sicca were no significant difference before and after treatment (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Rhinitis sicca is a separate nasal disease, which is different from atrophic rhinitis. It is important to find an effective treatment for the disease.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Electrophoretic evaluation of nasal discharge in patients with allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis are two common diseases that have similar symptoms and physical findings. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of electrophoretic analysis of nasal discharge for the differential diagnosis of allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis. METHODS: Two different groups of patients with allergic rhinitis (n = 18) and with vasomotor rhinitis (n = 18) diagnosed by current methods and 10 healthy subjects as a control group were included in this study. Component analyses of proteins in nasal wash were made by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. RESULTS: The mean levels of total protein, 66-kDa proteins and 26-kDa proteins (277.2 +/- 9 microg/mL, 114.5 +/- 9 microg/mL, and 67.0 +/- 4 microg/mL, respectively), in nasal washing samples of patients with allergic rhinitis were found to be higher than in the samples, (222.0 +/- 6 microg/mL, 65.6 +/- 6 microg/mL, and 42.9 +/- 4 microg/mL respectively) obtained from patients with vasomotor rhinitis. The control group showed the lowest rate of these proteins (167.8 +/- 7 microg/mL 34.3 +/- 3 microg/mL, and 25.0 +/- 3 microg/mL, respectively). The differences between mean levels of these proteins in all groups were statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that electrophoretic analysis of nasal discharge can be used for the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis. However, further studies are needed to standardize the technique of nasal wash and to determine the range of proteins in nasal secretions that will confirm the diagnosis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Rhinitis alone or rhinitis plus asthma: what makes the difference?

This paper examines the clinical expression of asthma in a group of patients displaying rhinitis according to age, sex, associated symptoms, smoking, familial history of asthma, atopy, type of sensitization to aeroallergens (pollens and/or indoor allergens), total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE), and blood eosinophils. A total of 117 adults with rhinitis were analysed on the basis of symptoms. Among them, 51 also displayed asthma, defined as a history of recurrent episodes of dyspnoea with a reversible airflow obstruction or a positive methacholine challenge. The logistic regression analysis carried out in a stepwise approach, combining several factors, showed that various parameters affected the risk of having asthma associated with rhinitis. A further analysis was made in 74 rhinitis patients comparing 42 subjects without nonallergic airway hyperresponsiveness (NAAH) to 32 patients with asthma and NAAH. Atopy, high total serum IgE levels, elevated blood eosinophil count and maternal asthma were associated with asthma. Furthermore, in atopic patients, pollen sensitization was more closely related to rhinitis alone, whereas sensitization to indoor allergens was a major determinant for the association of asthma with the symptoms of rhinitis. The same risk factors as those found in the clinical part of the study discriminated the patients with rhinitis without NAAH from those with rhinitis, asthma and NAAH. In conclusion, this study gives new insights into the relationships between asthma and rhinitis.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Nasal smear eosinophilia for the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis and eosinophilic non-allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate nasal smear eosinophilia for the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis and eosinophilic non-allergic rhinitis in general practice. DESIGN: Nasal smear eosinophilia was assessed and compared with 'consensus diagnoses' made by three experts in a modified Delphi method. SETTING: Nineteen general practices in The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: 363 consecutive patients aged 12 years or over who visited their general practitioner because of chronic or recurrent nasal symptoms between 1 March 1990 and 1 March 1991. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The predictive value of nasal smear eosinophilia for allergic rhinitis; the prevalence of eosinophilic non-allergic rhinitis. RESULTS: The positive predictive value of nasal smear eosinophilia (> or = 10% eosinophils) for allergic rhinitis was 30/37 = 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 65-92%), the negative predictive value 172/312 = 55% (95% CI: 50-61%). Addition of the result of nasal smear eosinophilia to the information that was already obtained from the medical history resulted in a significant but very small improvement in the discrimination between patients with and without allergic rhinitis. The prevalence of eosinophilic non-allergic rhinitis was 7/349 = 2.0% (95% CI: 0.8-4.1%). CONCLUSION: Nasal smear eosinophilia contributes significantly to the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis; however, this contribution is very small and considered clinically irrelevant. Eosinophilic non-allergic rhinitis has a low prevalence; identifying this disorder is of minor importance. In conclusion, nasal smear eosinophilia is not recommended for use in general practice.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Disease perception and social behaviour in persistent rhinitis: a comparison between patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Although the understanding of the pathophysiology and pharmacology of rhinitis has increased within recent years, few studies have examined the impact of rhinitis on patients' behaviour. AIM: To compare perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and perennial nonallergic rhinitis (PNR) in terms of patients' perception of their disease and its psychosocial concomitants. METHODS: Thirty-one PAR patients and 32 PNR patients responded to a standard symptom list and were interviewed in-depth regarding their complaints and the impact of rhinitis on their daily lives. RESULTS: PAR and PNR patients reported similar somatic and psychosocial complaints. In both disease groups the adverse effects of rhinitis were reported to be substantially limiting, particularly in social contacts, the impact appearing to be more severe in the women. CONCLUSION: Rhinitis has a severe impact on the daily lives of patients, women reporting more severe psychosocial effects. Disease perception and social adjustment appear to not depend appreciably on whether or not an objective diagnosis of rhinitis can be established.

Female↗
PubMed2003

Discriminant analysis in allergic rhinitis and asthma: methacholine dose-response slope allows a good differentiation between mild asthma and rhinitis.

Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in allergic patients, but nasal symptoms may predominate, leading to asthma underdiagnosis and undertreatment. Discriminant analysis obtains the best differentiation between groups using one or one set of variables. Our aim was to identify the laboratory test [allergen exposure, total and specific serum IgE, lung function, blood eosinophils and, bronchial response and sensitivity to methacholine (Mth) and allergen] or combination of them that allowed the best differentiation between mild asthma and allergic rhinitis. A cross-sectional analysis was performed in 86 Dermatophogoides pteronyssinus allergic rhinitis patients, who were classified according to clinical data as rhinitis plus mild asthma (n = 62) or "pure" rhinitis (n = 24). Bronchial symptoms had been exhaustively evaluated during a 2-years pre-inclusion period. Patients underwent skin tests and bronchial challenge with Mth and allergen. The exposure to D. pteronyssinus allergen (Der pl) was quantified in dust samples. Dose-response curves with Mth [until the FEV1 fell by 40% or the maximal dose (200 mg/ml) was inhaled] were attained. We developed multiple models of discriminant analysis in order to evaluate the capacity of the above variables to differentiate groups. Asthma patients had higher total and specific IgE levels and a greater sensitivity (PD20 values) and response [dose-response slope (DRS)] to both Mth and allergen. The model entering these variables was the one that correctly classified more patients (79.2%). The discriminative power of the model that only included Mth-DRS values was similar to the above (78.8%). Bronchial response to Mth is quantitatively different in allergic rhinitis patients who display mild asthma symptoms when compared to those that only report rhinitis, suggesting a distinct bronchial intrinsic behavior. The utilization of complete dose-response curves with Mth allows a good separation between mild asthma and "pure" rhinitis patients and might be useful in the diagnosis of mild asthma. Whether the early detection and treatment of these patients prevents the development of symptomatic asthma needs further evaluation.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

The effect of montelukast on rhinitis symptoms in patients with asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate montelukast 10 mg daily as treatment for allergic rhinitis in patients with symptomatic allergic rhinitis and active asthma during the allergy season. METHODS: This was a multicenter study of 831 patients (ages 15 years-85 years) with seasonal allergen sensitivity, active symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, and active asthma. Following a single-blind, placebo run-in period of 3 days-5 days, patients were randomized to oral montelukast 10 mg (n = 415) or placebo (n = 416) daily during the 2-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was Daily Rhinitis Symptoms score, average of Daytime Nasal Symptoms and Nighttime Symptoms, as self-rated by patients on a 0-3 scale on daily diaries. RESULTS: Montelukast reduced the Daily Rhinitis Symptoms score: difference between montelukast and placebo in mean change from baseline was -0.12 [95% CI -0.18, -0.06; p < or = 0.001]. Similar improvements were seen in Daytime Nasal Symptoms (-0.14 [-0.21, -0.07; p < or = 0.001]) and Nighttime Symptoms (-0.10 [-0.16, -0.04; p < or = 0.001]). Improvements (p < 0.05) were seen in Daytime Eye Symptoms and in the secondary endpoints of Global Evaluations of AR by Patient and by Physician, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life. In exploratory analyses, improvement in rhinitis symptoms was numerically (though not statistically) larger in patients with greater levels of asthma at study start. Montelukast provided benefit in the Global Evaluations of Asthma by Patient and by Physician: mean differences were -0.24 [-0.41, -0.06; p = 0.008] and -0.17 [-0.33, -0.01; p = 0.037]. Similarly, as-needed beta-agonist use (puffs/day) was reduced with montelukast (p < or = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Montelukast provides significant relief from symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, while also conferring a benefit for asthma, in patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Acetates↗