Nasal lysine aspirin challenge in the diagnosis of aspirin - exacerbated respiratory disease

Background Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease is under-diagnosed and therefore effective and inexpensive therapy with aspirin desensitization is rarely performed. Methods We present an audit of 150 patients with difficult to treat nasal polyposis, 132 of whom also had asthma, 131 of whom underwent challenge with the only soluble form of aspirin, lysine aspirin (LAS), to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). Results One hundred patients proved positive on nasal challenge, 31 who were negative went onto oral LAS challenge and a further 14 gave positive results, leaving 17 who were negative to a dose equivalent to over 375 mg of aspirin. Nineteen were not challenged because of contraindications. With the exception of one patient who developed facial angioedema and two patients with > 20% drop in FEV1 (following nasal plus oral challenge) no other severe adverse events occurred. No hospitalization was required for these three patients. Nasal inspiratory peak flow monitoring was less sensitive to obstruction caused by aspirin than was acoustic rhinometry – which should be employed when aspirin challenge is an outpatient procedure. Conclusions Provided patients are carefully chosen and monitored LAS challenge is suitable for ENT day case practice where respiratory physician help with asthma is available and should reduce the under-diagnosis of this condition

Intranasal lysine-aspirin administration decreases polyp volume in patients with aspirin-intolerant asthma

Introduction: Nasal polyposis associated with aspirin-intolerant asthma tends to be difficult to control, with frequent recurrences. We examined the effect of intranasal lysine-aspirin administration on resistant nasal polyps of asthmatic, aspirin-intolerant patients, when used in addition to routine therapy. Patients and methods: Thirteen patients with asthma and intolerance to aspirin were recruited. All but one had undergone numerous polypectomies and were uncontrolled on standard therapy with intranasal corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists and nasal douching. Aspirin treatment involved one drop (100 mu l) of 30 mg/ml lysine-aspirin solution to each nostril, initially daily, increased every two or three days up to a maximal of 18 drops (54 mg lysine-aspirin) a day. Nasal symptoms, nitric oxide level, nasal inspiratory peak flow rate, peak expiratory flow rate and nasendoscopic grading were assessed prior to therapy and three months later. We also compared the change in endoscopic polyp scores during three months of lysine-aspirin administration with the changes which had occurred during the three months prior to administration (during which time other therapies had been identical). Results: Nasal blockage symptoms tended to decrease; other nasal symptoms were unchanged. Significant changes were seen in nasal inspiratory peak flow rate (103.3 +/- 18.9 and 140.0 +/- 16.71/min before and after aspirin, respectively; p = 0.014), but not in peak expiratory flow rate (438.7 +/- 33.4 and 440.0 +/- 28.4 1/min before and after aspirin, respectively; p = 0.700). Nasal nitric oxide levels rose significantly (in both sides, p = 0.028). Expired chest nitric oxide levels did not change. Nasal polyp scores on nasendoscopic examination were significantly reduced (right side, p = 0.027; left side, p = 0.018). Compared with the preceding three months, adding intranasal lysine-aspirin application had the effect on decreasing nasal polyp volume (right side, p = 0.031; left side, p = 0.016). Conclusion: This open study suggests that intranasal lysine-aspirin administration reduces nasal polyp volume in aspirin-intolerant patients, without any adverse affect on concomitant asthma. This was a preliminary study and should be followed by a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

A common language to assess allergic rhinitis control : results from a survey conducted during EAACI 2013 Congress

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Prevalence of hyperventilation syndrome in an allergy clinic, compared with a routine ENT clinic

Objectives: A high prevalence of chronic hyperventilation syndrome in patients with asthma has been reported. We examined whether this phenomenon extended to allergy clinic patients in general and whether the prevalence was higher in patients attending a general allergy clinic compared with those attending a routine ENT clinic in our hospital.Methods: We examined the prevalence of hyperventilation syndrome in unselected, consecutive patients (n = 100) seen in an allergy clinic. The validated Nijmegen questionnaire was completed by patients in the waiting room. We also administered the questionnaire to unselected, consecutive patients (n = 100) in a routine ENT clinic.Results: There was no significant difference in prevalence of hyperventilation between allergy clinic and routine ENT clinic patients (25/100 vs 23/100).Conclusion: The result indicates a high prevalence of hyperventilation amongst hospital attendees in general. Consideration should perhaps be given to the possible role of hyperventilation in symptomatology

Position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Rhinitis is a common problem in childhood and adolescence and impacts negatively on physical, social and psychological well-being. This position paper, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Taskforce on Rhinitis in Children, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of paediatric rhinitis. Rhinitis is characterized by at least two nasal symptoms: rhinorrhoea, blockage, sneezing or itching. It is classified as allergic rhinitis, infectious rhinitis and nonallergic, noninfectious rhinitis. Similar symptoms may occur with other conditions such as adenoidal hypertrophy, septal deviation and nasal polyps. Examination by anterior rhinoscopy and allergy tests may help to substantiate a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Avoidance of relevant allergens may be helpful for allergic rhinitis (AR). Oral and intranasal antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids are both appropriate for first-line AR treatment although the latter are more effective. Once-daily forms of corticosteroids are preferred given their improved safety profile. Potentially useful add-on therapies for AR include oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, short bursts of a nasal decongestant, saline douches and nasal anticholinergics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is helpful in IgE-mediated AR and may prevent the progression of allergic disease. There are still a number of areas that need to be clarified in the management of rhinitis in children and adolescents.publishersversionpublishe

Effect of Specific Immunoglobulin E Response and Comorbidities on Effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu in a Real-Life Study

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the subjects who participated in the trial. Funding Sources: This study was supported by MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (a Mylan Company), Bad Homburg, Germany. Technical, editorial, and medical writing assistance were provided under the direction of the authors by Strategix, an affiliate of The Lynx Group, LLC. This assistance was supported by MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (a Mylan Company).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Pre-asthma : a useful concept for prevention and disease-modification? A EUFOREA paper. Part 1—allergic asthma

Funding The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Burden of allergic rhinitis and impact of MP-AzeFlu from the patient perspective : pan European patient survey

Funding for this research was provided by Mylan Inc. Acknowledgements We thank Dr Ruth B Murray (Medscript NZ Ltd) for assistance in drafting and editing this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of grass allergen immunotherapy tablet for seasonal allergic rhinitis: time course of nasal, cutaneous and immunological outcomes

BACKGROUND: Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis is characterised by inflammation of the nasal mucosa upon exposure to common aeroallergens, affecting up to 20-25 % of the population. For those patients whose symptoms are not controlled by standard medical treatment, allergen specific immunotherapy is a therapeutic alternative. Although several studies have shown changes in immunologic responses as well as long term tolerance following treatment with a sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablet, a detailed time course of the early mechanistic changes of local and systemic T and B cell responses and the effects on B cell repertoire in the nasal mucosa have not been fully examined. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized, double-blind, single-centre, placebo controlled, two arm time course study based in the United Kingdom comparing sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablet (GRAZAX(®), ALK-Abello Horsholm, Denmark) plus standard treatment with placebo plus standard treatment. Up to 50 moderate to severe grass pollen allergic participants will be enrolled to ensure randomisation of at least 44. Further, we shall enrol 20 non-atopic volunteers. Screening will be completed before eligible atopic participants are randomised to one of the two treatment arms in a 1 to 1 ratio. The primary endpoint will be the total nasal symptom score assessed over 60 min following grass pollen nasal allergen challenge after 12 months of treatment. Clinical assessments and/or mechanistic analyses on blood, nasal fluid, brushing and biopsies will be performed at baseline at 1, 2, 3, 4 (coinciding with the peak pollen season), 6 and 12 months of treatment. After 12 months of treatment, unblinding will take place. Those atopic participants receiving active treatment will continue therapy for another 12 months followed by a post treatment phase of 12 months. Assessments and collection of biologic samples from these participants will take place again at 24 and at 36 months from the start of treatment. The 20 healthy, non-atopic controls will undergo screening and one visit only coinciding with the 12 month visit for the atopic participants. DISCUSSION: The trial will end in April 2017. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial identifying number is NCT02005627. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Primary Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial Identifying number: NCT02005627, Secondary identifying numbers: EudraCT number: 2013-003732-72 REC: 13/EM/0351, Imperial College London (Sponsor): 13IC0847, Protocol Version 6.0, Date: 16.05.2014