Difference in symptom severity between early and late grass pollen season in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For the development of forecasts for seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms, it is essential to understand the relationship between grass pollen concentrations and the symptoms of grass pollen allergic patients.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>The aim of this study was to delineate this relationship between seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms and grass pollen concentrations in the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Grass pollen allergic patients (n = 80 [2007] - 84 [2008]) were enrolled into the study. They were asked to enter their seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms (runny nose, sneezing, blocked nose, post nasal drip, and eye symptoms) daily on a scale from 0 to 3 to the study centre either by short message service (SMS) or by internet from May-July 2007 and April-July 2008. Daily pollen counts were used to define the early and the late grass pollen season as the period 'before and during' respectively 'after' the first grass pollen peak (more than 150 pollen/m³).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At similar grass pollen concentrations, the daily mean of the individual maximum symptom scores reported in the early season were higher as compared to that reported in the late season [differences of -0.41 (2007) and -0.30 (2008)]. This difference could not be explained by medication use by the patients nor by co-sensitization to birch.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We conclude that seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms at similar grass pollen concentrations are more severe in the early flowering season as compared to those in the late flowering season. This finding is not only relevant for development of forecasts for seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms but also for understanding symptom development and planning and analysis of clinical studies.</p

Current laboratory and clinical practices in reporting and interpreting anti-nuclear antibody indirect immunofluorescence (ANA IIF) patterns: results of an international survey

Background The International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Patterns (ICAP) has recently proposed nomenclature in order to harmonize ANA indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) pattern reporting. ICAP distinguishes competent-level from expert-level patterns. A survey was organized to evaluate reporting, familiarity, and considered clinical value of ANA IIF patterns. Methods Two surveys were distributed by European Autoimmunity Standardization Initiative (EASI) working groups, the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) and UK NEQAS to laboratory professionals and clinicians. Results 438 laboratory professionals and 248 clinicians from 67 countries responded. Except for dense fine speckled (DFS), the nuclear competent patterns were reported by > 85% of the laboratories. Except for rods and rings, the cytoplasmic competent patterns were reported by > 72% of laboratories. Cytoplasmic IIF staining was considered ANA positive by 55% of clinicians and 62% of laboratory professionals, with geographical and expertise-related differences. Quantification of fluorescence intensity was considered clinically relevant for nuclear patterns, but less so for cytoplasmic and mitotic patterns. Combining IIF with specific extractable nuclear antigens (ENA)/dsDNA antibody testing was considered most informative. Of the nuclear competent patterns, the centromere and homogeneous pattern obtained the highest scores for clinical relevance and the DFS pattern the lowest. Of the cytoplasmic patterns, the reticular/mitochondria-like pattern obtained the highest scores for clinical relevance and the polar/Golgi-like and rods and rings patterns the lowest. Conclusion This survey confirms that the major nuclear and cytoplasmic ANA IIF patterns are considered clinically important. There is no unanimity on classifying DFS, rods and rings and polar/Golgi-like as a competent pattern and on reporting cytoplasmic patterns as ANA IIF positive