The role of CD14 gene promoter polymorphism in tuberculosis susceptibility

BackgroundCD14 is expressed principally by cells of monocyte/macrophage lineage and plays a pivotal role in the innate immunity to intracellular infections. Recent research findings have revealed an association between the CD14 gene promoter polymorphism and several major infectious diseases.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to investigate the association between the CD14-159C/T polymorphism and tuberculosis in a Turkish population.MethodsFor this purpose, 88 consecutive patients with tuberculosis (63 pulmonary, 25 extrapulmonary) and 116 control subjects were enrolled into a prospective study. We determined CD14-159 genotypes by polymerase chain reaction - restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis and also measured serum concentrations of soluble CD14 (sCD14) by using a quantitative sandwich enzyme immunoassay technique.ResultsThere was no significant difference in terms of genotype distribution between patients with tuberculosis (CC 18.2%, CT 48.9%, TT 33.0%) and controls (CC 12.9%, CT 50.9%, TT 36.2%) or between patients with pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Serum levels of sCD14 were significantly increased in patients with active tuberculosis compared to those with inactive tuberculosis and healthy controls (p<0.001). However, levels of sCD14 were not associated with any genotypes of CD14-159.ConclusionThe genotyping findings of the present study do not support a role for the CD14-159C/T polymorphism in the development of tuberculosis, at least in the geographical region of central Anatolia. Significantly elevated serum sCD14 levels in patients with active disease reflect the importance of the mononuclear phagocytic system activation in tuberculosis

Does Serum Leptin Differ Between Patients With Rhinitis Of Allergic Vs Nonallergic Aetiology?

Annual Meeting of the American-Academy-of-Allergy-Asthma-and-Immunology (AAAAI) -- FEB 28-MAR 04, 2014 -- San Diego, CAWOS: 000330241300266…Amer Acad Allergy Asthma & Immuno

An unusual form of formaldehyde induced lung disease

WOS: 000254250100007PubMed: 17594875A case report of an unusual formaldehyde exposure that had happened accidentally is described. A 54-year-old male ingested 10% formaldehyde and inhaled while vomiting and he developed cough, dyspnea and wheezing with prevalent ronci and bilateral infiltrates on chest x-ray (cxr). His pulmonary symptoms and FEV1 responded well to systemic corticosteroids and nebulised salbutamol given for the possible diagnosis of hypersensitivity and/or chemical pneumonitis, and infiltrates were cleared. Two weeks after the incident, he had massive haemoptysis, fever, leucocytes, prevalent crackles, bronchospasm, and new infiltrates on CXR. After an antibiotic and steroid therapy, his symptoms and crackles relieved, radiographic infiltrates were regressed. Delayed type hypersensitivity to formaldehyde patch test was appropriate with late-onset symptoms. This is a first case of pneumonitis as well as asthma different from the occupational exposure to formaldehyde. This data suggests direct and indirect effects of formaldehyde in healthy human airways

Comparison of azelastine versus triamcinolone nasal spray in allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

65th Annual Meeting of the American-Academy-of-Allergy-Asthma-and-Immunology -- MAR 13-17, 2009 -- Washington, DCWOS: 000274570000007PubMed: 20109317Background: Intranasal antihistamine has not been thoroughly studied in the treatment of rhinitis of different etiologies. This study was designed to show the comparative efficacy of nasal antihistamine and nasal corticosteroid in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). Methods: A comparison of the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray (AZENS) versus triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray (TANS) on total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (nPIFR), and nasal cytology was studied in a 2-week randomized parallel-group trial. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were also analyzed. Results: The study group consisted of 132 patients (100 women and 32 men) with a mean age of 33.14 +/- 12.52 years, Sixty-nine patients had AR and 63 had NAR. Although TNSS including sneezing, itching, rhinorrhea, congestion-but not anosmia-significantly improved in both groups, intranasal azelastine reduced ocular symptoms greatly compared with intranasal triamcinolone (p = 0.05). Patients with NAR seemed to respond more to TANS, whereas AZENS was more useful in AR. The nPIFR improved in AR and NAR, with no significant difference between the treatment groups. Neither intranasal azelastine nor intranasal triamcinolone changed cytology in nasal lavage. Both medications were well tolerated, but AZENS led to more adverse events than TANS (56.9 and 19%, respectively; p = 0.001), mainly because of bitter taste. Scores on each domain of generic HRQoL (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) and mini-rhinitis QoL questionnaires, as well as ESS score, significantly improved in both groups, irrespective of rhinitis etiology. Conclusion: In this first comparative demonstration, AZENS appears to be as effective as triamcinolone in symptom scores, nPIFR, ESS, and HRQoL, equally in AR and NAR. (Am J Rhinol Allergy 24, 29-33, 2010; doi: 10.2500/ajra.2010.24.3423)Amer Acad Allergy Asthma & Immunol (AAAAI

Asthma as a Comorbid Disease in COVID-19

Bavbek, Sevim/0000-0002-7884-0830WOS:000592369300002Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In terms of asthma and COVID-19, there is also a risk of experiencing an asthma exacerbation triggered by coronavirus infection beyond the direct risk of the infection itself. As a comorbid disease, the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in asthma patients is not clear. In addition, the influence of asthma on the severity of COVID-19 has not been reported. The aim of this review was to summarize the reported worldwide data about the prevalence and the clinical characteristics of patients with asthma during COVID-19 infection

Rationale for the autologous serum skin test in acute versus chronic urticaria

WOS: 000506827300010PubMed: 31997998Introduction: Autologous serum skin test (ASST) is a rapid, in-vivo clinical test to detect functional autoantibodies in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), but the rationale for its use in acute urticaria (AU) is unknown. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of ASST among patients with AU or CSU. Material and methods: Treatment-naIve adult (age >= 18 years) patients with a diagnosis of AU ( 100 IU/ml) in AU (85.2%) and CSU (65.2%) groups was similar (p = 0.06), but significantly higher than in the control group (10.7%) (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). The CSU group had significantly higher abnormal thyroid test results (45.7%) than AU (14.8%) and control groups (3.6%) (p = 0.01 and p < 0.001), whereas patients with clinically diagnosed thyroiditis were only in the CSU group (6.5%). In logistic regression analysis, there was no relation found among the possible risk factors for ASST, even if analysed separately as AU, CSU and control groups. Conclusions: Even though thyroid function test levels were found to be related with CSU, and total IgE was associated with urticaria, ASST was found to be of importance. This study confirms that ASST was insufficient to demonstrate autoimmunity and acute-chronic urticaria nature. Further tests indicating auto-antibodies in AU and CSU are needed

Desensitization in Interferon-beta 1a Allergy: A Case Report

WOS: 000263355000014PubMed: 19127077We report a 41-year-old patient with multiple sclerosis (MS) who was successfully desensitized after she developed non-injection-site urticaria and angioedema due to interferon (IFN)-beta 1a. Although a few cases of urticaria and anaphylaxis have been reported in the literature, to our knowledge this is the first report of a successful desensitization with IFN-beta 1a. Desensitization with IFN-beta 1a allowed us to continue with the administration of interferon-beta, which is a mainstay in treatment for MS. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Base

Allergic and Nonallergic Rhinitis: Can We Find the Differences/Similarities between the Two Pictures?

WOS: 000267195300010PubMed: 19544169The diagnostic challenge of rhinitis is to determine the etiology, specifically whether it is allergic or nonallergic. We therefore evaluated the general features of patients with allergic (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR), as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The study group consisted of 323 patients (201 F/122 M) with a mean age of 31.79 +/- 12.64 years. Almost two thirds of the population had AR (63.5%). Neither the demographic characteristics nor the duration of rhinitis was different between the two groups. Total immunoglobulin E was significantly higher in AR. Although both groups displayed a mild-intermittent rhinitis profile, patients with AR had more seasonal and NAR had more perennial symptoms (p = 0.01). Frequency of nasal obstruction was comparable in both groups, whereas patients with AR significantly complained of rhinorrhea (86.8%), followed by nasal obstruction, sneezing, and nasal itching compared with the NAR group. Conjunctivitis and sinusitis were more prominent in the AR than NAR group (p = 0.01). However, the prevalences of asthma and bronchial hyperreactivity were not different, as well as the other allergic or systemic comorbidities. Furthermore, the impairment in HRQoL was similar in both groups, using a generic questionnaire- Short form-36 (SF-36). In conclusion, although the allergy test results still remain the only relevant difference, the diagnosis of NAR is important as it has many differences/similarities with AR and is seen almost half as often as AR in patients with chronic rhinitis

Contribution of Neurogenic and Allergic Ways to the Pathophysiology of Nonallergic Rhinitis

WOS: 000311488700010PubMed: 23018649Background: A neuroallergic interaction was reported in the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis (AR), but the pathophysiology of nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is poorly understood. We aimed to explore the contribution of neuroallergic mechanisms to the pathogenesis of NAR. Methods: Subjects were divided into three groups - NAR patients (n = 25), AR patients (n = 16) and the control group (n = 10) - and were assessed using the nasal provocation test (NPT) with house dust mite. Total symptom scores, nasal inspiratory peak flow and nasal lavage were performed before and after NPT. Nasal brushing and scraping was done after NPT. Results: NPT was positive in NAR (52%) and AR (100%) patients and negative in all controls. After NPT, total symptom scores increased in both rhinitis groups. Post-NPT values of nasal inspiratory peak flow decreased only in AR patients. NAR patients showed a similar inflammatory cell profile in the nasal smears to AR patients which was different in controls. There were more tryptase- and immunoglobulin E (IgE)-positive cells in the nasal mucosa of AR patients, and more substance-p-positive cells were observed in NAR patients compared with controls. However, IgE- and tryptase-positive cells in NAR patients and substance-p-positive cells in AR patients were detectable in nasal mucosa, but rarely in the controls. Comparing the values before and after NPT, tryptase significantly increased in the nasal lavages of AR and NAR patients, while house dust mite-specific IgE did not change. Conclusions: We showed the existence of a common pathophysiological mechanism with different contributions in AR and NAR. We conclude that the difference in dominance of neuroallergic ways may determine the major phenotype of rhinitis. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, BaselKirikkale University Projects of Scientific ResearchesKirikkale University [2007/4]This work was supported by a grant from Kirikkale University Projects of Scientific Researches (grant No. 2007/4) which was received by Baccioglu Kavut and Fusun Kalpaklioglu