Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2006
Association between response to decongestion testing and sensitizations and allergic inflammation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ciprandi Giorgio, Cirillo Ignazio, Klersy Catherine, Vizzaccaro Andrea, Tosca Maria Angela, Marseglia Gian Luigi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rhinomanometry is used to measure nasal airflow, which is frequently impaired in allergic rhinitis (AR). Decongestion testing consists of spraying an intranasal vasoconstrictor drug to evaluate recovery of nasal airflow.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships among type and number of sensitizations, nasal airflow recovery after topical vasoconstrictor drug use, and allergic inflammation.
METHODS: A total of 123 patients (112 men and 11 women; mean +/- SD age, 22.9 +/- 5.7 years) were studied: 40 with perennial AR (PAR), 43 with mixed AR (MAR), and 40 with seasonal AR (SAR). Patients with anatomic nasal defects were excluded. Total symptom scores (including nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal obstruction), sensitizations, nasal eosinophils, and cytokines (including interleukin 4 [IL-4], IL-5, and interferon-gamma) were evaluated. Electronic rhinomanometry and decongestion testing were performed in all the patients.
RESULTS: After administration of a topical nasal vasoconstrictor agent, mean nasal airflow significantly increased from 471 to 580 mL/s (P < .001). In 12 patients (3 with PAR, 3 with MAR, and 6 with SAR), no increase was shown. Changes from baseline were different in the PAR, MAR, and SAR populations (PAR vs MAR, P < .001; PAR vs SAR, P < .001; and MAR vs SAR, P = .25). Type of sensitization (MAR, PAR, or SAR), concentration of eosinophils, and levels of IL-4, IL-5, and interferon-gamma were associated with nasal airflow recovery of at least 120 mL/s.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence of a different response to decongestion testing taking into consideration the type of AR.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships among type and number of sensitizations, nasal airflow recovery after topical vasoconstrictor drug use, and allergic inflammation.
METHODS: A total of 123 patients (112 men and 11 women; mean +/- SD age, 22.9 +/- 5.7 years) were studied: 40 with perennial AR (PAR), 43 with mixed AR (MAR), and 40 with seasonal AR (SAR). Patients with anatomic nasal defects were excluded. Total symptom scores (including nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal obstruction), sensitizations, nasal eosinophils, and cytokines (including interleukin 4 [IL-4], IL-5, and interferon-gamma) were evaluated. Electronic rhinomanometry and decongestion testing were performed in all the patients.
RESULTS: After administration of a topical nasal vasoconstrictor agent, mean nasal airflow significantly increased from 471 to 580 mL/s (P < .001). In 12 patients (3 with PAR, 3 with MAR, and 6 with SAR), no increase was shown. Changes from baseline were different in the PAR, MAR, and SAR populations (PAR vs MAR, P < .001; PAR vs SAR, P < .001; and MAR vs SAR, P = .25). Type of sensitization (MAR, PAR, or SAR), concentration of eosinophils, and levels of IL-4, IL-5, and interferon-gamma were associated with nasal airflow recovery of at least 120 mL/s.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence of a different response to decongestion testing taking into consideration the type of AR.