Clinico-pathological profile of sinonasal masses: an experience in national ear care center Kaduna, Nigeria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The presence of a mass in the nose and paranasal sinuses may seem to be a simple problem; however it raises many questions about the differential diagnosis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinico-pathological profile of sinonasal masses in our environment</p> <p>This is a retrospective analytical review of all the patients with sinonasal masses that presented to the national ear care center, Kaduna over a six year (2003-2008) period. Their biodata, clinical profile and histological diagnoses were analyzed.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>A total of 76 patients were analyzed, age range 5 to 64 yrs with a mean age of 33.3 yr median and modal age of 35.00 (SD = 13.1 ± 1.5). Majority of the patients were in the age groups 21-50 yrs. There were 34 male and 42 female with M: F ratio of 1:1.2. The main presenting symptoms are nasal blockage 97.4% and rhinorrhea 94.7%. It was bilateral in 34 (44.7%), left side in 24(31.6%) and right side in 18(23.7%) patients. The commonest clinical diagnoses were simple nasal polyp 47(61.8%) and antrochoanal polyp 10(13.2%). About 59 (77.6%) were benign, 2 (2.6%) were malignant and 15 (19.7%) were lost to follow up. The commonest histological diagnosis is simple inflammatory nasal polyp in 28 (36.8%) patients and the least was nasal capillary hemangioma 2 (2.6%). About 55(72.4%) patients had surgical treatment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Nasal obstruction and rhinorrhea are the commonest symptoms of presentation, simple inflammatory nasal polyp is still the commonest histological pattern seen in our environment, and surgery is still the best modality of treatment for benign tumor thus the need for advocacy for early recognition and referral to the ENT surgeon.</p

Non-allergic rhinitis: a case report and review

Rhinitis is characterized by rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal congestion, nasal itch and/or postnasal drip. Often the first step in arriving at a diagnosis is to exclude or diagnose sensitivity to inhalant allergens. Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) comprises multiple distinct conditions that may even co-exist with allergic rhinitis (AR). They may differ in their presentation and treatment. As well, the pathogenesis of NAR is not clearly elucidated and likely varied. There are many conditions that can have similar presentations to NAR or AR, including nasal polyps, anatomical/mechanical factors, autoimmune diseases, metabolic conditions, genetic conditions and immunodeficiency. Here we present a case of a rare condition initially diagnosed and treated as typical allergic rhinitis vs. vasomotor rhinitis, but found to be something much more serious. This case illustrates the importance of maintaining an appropriate differential diagnosis for a complaint routinely seen as mundane. The case presentation is followed by a review of the potential causes and pathogenesis of NAR

A dexamethasone prodrug reduces the renal macrophage response and provides enhanced resolution of established murine lupus nephritis

We evaluated the ability of a macromolecular prodrug of dexamethasone (P-Dex) to treat lupus nephritis in (NZB × NZW)F1 mice. We also explored the mechanism underlying the anti-inflammatory effects of this prodrug. P-Dex eliminated albuminuria in most (NZB × NZW)F1 mice. Furthermore, P-Dex reduced the incidence of severe nephritis and extended lifespan in these mice. P-Dex treatment also prevented the development of lupus-associated hypertension and vasculitis. Although P-Dex did not reduce serum levels of anti-dsDNA antibodies or glomerular immune complexes, P-Dex reduced macrophage recruitment to the kidney and attenuated tubulointerstitial injury. In contrast to what was observed with free dexamethasone, P-Dex did not induce any deterioration of bone quality. However, P-Dex did lead to reduced peripheral white blood cell counts and adrenal gland atrophy. These results suggest that P-Dex is more effective and less toxic than free dexamethasone for the treatment of lupus nephritis in (NZB × NZW)F1 mice. Furthermore, the data suggest that P-Dex may treat nephritis by attenuating the renal inflammatory response to immune complexes, leading to decreased immune cell infiltration and diminished renal inflammation and injury

How safe are the biologicals in treating asthma and rhinitis?

A number of biological agents are available or being investigated for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis. The safety profiles of these biologic agents, which may modify allergic and immunological diseases, are still being elucidated. Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy, the oldest biologic agent in current use, has the highest of frequency of the most serious and life-threatening reaction, anaphylaxis. It is also one of the only disease modifying interventions for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Efforts to seek safer and more effective allergen immunotherapy treatment have led to investigations of alternate routes of delivery and modified immunotherapy formulations. Sublingual immunotherapy appears to be associated with a lower, but not zero, risk of anaphylaxis. No fatalities have been reported to date with sublingual immunotherapy. Immunotherapy with modified formulations containing Th1 adjuvants, DNA sequences containing a CpG motif (CpG) and 3-deacylated monophospholipid A, appears to provide the benefits of subcutaneous immunotherapy with a single course of 4 to 6 preseasonal injections. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events or anaphylaxis in the clinical trials of these two immunotherapy adjuvants. Omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody against IgE, has been associated with a small risk of anaphylaxis, affecting 0.09% to 0.2% of patients. It may also be associated with a higher risk of geohelminth infection in patients at high risk for parasitic infections but it does not appear to affect the response to treatment or severity of the infection