Search

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an allergic inflammatory disease in which allergen exposure leads to the appearance of symptoms in sensitized individuals because of histamine liberation from nasal mucosal mast cells. Comorbidity of this disease with allergic asthma is common. Therefore, the one airway one disease theory has been put forward. Lower respiratory tract provocation tests with both nonspecific (methacholine) and specific stimulants (allergen) have yielded positive results in nonasthmatic patients with AR. However, not enough research is available to demonstrate whether there is a response in the lower respiratory tract during nasal provocation tests (NPTs) performed to evaluate only nasal airway in these patients., Objectives: To determine if the lower respiratory tract was affected as a result of NPTs with nonspecific and specific stimulants in nonasthmatic patients with AR and to determine the frequency of lower respiratory tract obstruction due to NPT with nonspecific and specific stimulants., Methods: Thirty-six participants were enrolled in the study between November 2005 and January 2006 (18 AR patients and 18 healthy control subjects). Patients underwent 2 sessions of NPT. The first session was performed with nasal methacholine as a nonspecific stimulant, and the second session was performed with nasal Olea europaea extract as a specific stimulant. The control group underwent only nonspecific nasal provocation with methacholine. Basal nasal opening and nasal pressures were evaluated spirometrically by rhinomanometric measurements and basal respiratory function tests in both groups before methacholine nasal provocation. Whether or not nasal provocation was achieved, spirometric measurements were performed in all patients and controls after NPTs., Results: NPTs with methacholine resulted in a similar frequency of nasal provocation in the patient and control groups (P = .63). However, the mean methacholine dose was lower in patients with AR (P = .049). There was a decrease in parameters of asthma, including the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second to forced vital capacity (P = .04), peak expiratory flow (P = .01), and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% (P = .004), as a result of NPTs with methacholine in the patient group. However, NPTs with allergen did not cause a change in lower respiratory tract obstruction criteria., Conclusions: Lower respiratory tract obstruction can occur after NPTs with nonspecific stimulants; therefore, tests performed with specific allergens can be regarded as safer.

Objective: This review focuses on the uses of nasal provocation testing (NPT) for scientific investigations of the mechanisms of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis. It also describes the use of NPT as a diagnostic tool in clinical practice. The indications, contraindications, advantages, and limitations of different techniques for evaluation of nasal responses are reviewed. The paper familiarizes investigators with particulars of different nasal delivery systems, provocation agents, nasal patency measurements, secretion collection, and nasal lavage techniques., Data Sources: Relevant publications obtained from a literature review., Study Selection: Relevant publications on the topics of NPT, allergic, and nonallergic rhinitis were critically evaluated., Results and Conclusions: To date, NPT has been used primarily as a research tool for the investigation of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis with a wide variety of techniques depending on the specific scientific purposes. NPT will continue to provide useful information about the pathogenesis of airway diseases. Standardized nasal provocation testing has the potential to become a more frequently used clinical test in the diagnosis of allergic and occupational rhinitis and for determination of the appropriate and focused therapy.

Background: It has been difficult to demonstrate dose-dependent clinical effects of anti-allergic glucocorticosteroid drugs in allergic rhinitis., Objective: To determine dose-dependent effects on rhinitis symptoms of clinical doses of the glucocorticosteroid budesonide in a standardized daily allergen challenge model., Methods: Twenty-five patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were examined outside the pollen season. The highest 256 microg once daily and lowest 64 microg once daily clinically recommended doses of budesonide aqueous nasal spray and placebo were given in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, and crossover design with 4 weeks' washout between treatments. After 1 week's treatment, the patients received individually titrated nasal allergen challenges once every morning for 8 days while treatment continued. Nasal symptoms were scored in diary cards. Nasal symptoms from the 6th to the 8th challenge days were used in the analysis., Results: The provocation model produced clinically relevant, and around the clock well tolerable rhinitis symptoms, suggesting that after several days of repeated allergen challenges, a season-like, transient allergic disease condition had been established. Both 64 microg and 256 microg of budesonide aqueous nasal spray reduced nasal symptoms. Budesonide 64 microg reduced total nasal symptoms scores from 5.19 +/- 0.5 to 4.23 +/- 0.53 (P < .05), and budesonide 256 microg reduced total nasal symptoms scores to 3.41 +/- 0.51 (P < .001). A significant difference in nasal symptoms after challenge between budesonide aqueous nasal spray 64 microg and 256 microg (P = .03), indicated a dose-dependent effect., Conclusions: A dose-dependent, symptom-reducing effect of once-daily treatment with topical aqueous nasal sprays of budesonide for two weeks was demonstrated, suggesting that this model is relevant for assessments of dose-dependent effects of anti-inflammatory drugs.