Comparison of clinical traits for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis during allergen exposure.

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is traditionally subdivided into seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR) according to the type of allergen and the occurrence of symptoms during the year. There are currently no reports on the comparison of trait profiles for SAR and PAR during the allergen exposure. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical characteristics of SAR and PAR during respective allergen exposure periods to provide valuable information for the development of treatment strategies. Methods: This study was performed between August 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022, in the Department of Allergy, Beijing Tongren Hospital. We continuously included diagnosed SAR and PAR outpatients who volunteered to participate in the survey. A questionnaire with regard to medical history, severity of symptoms, and diagnosis and treatment status was collected. Results: A total of 296 patients with SAR and 448 with PAR were finally recruited. Patients with SAR had more severe rhinorrhea compared with patients with PAR (p < 0.001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in the severity of itching, sneezing, and congestion between the two entities (p ≥ 0.05). Both the gritty and watery eyes of patients with SAR were noticeably more severe than those of patients with PAR (PTotal Ocular Symptom Score [PTOSS] < 0.001). AR symptom severity is mainly associated with the comorbid allergic conjunctivitis (odds ratio 1.94 [95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.09]). SAR patients and PAR patients show no statistically significant differences in terms of their frequency of visits, annual expenditure, and choice of medication treatment for AR (p > 0.05). The overall control under standard medication of both patients with PAR and those with SAR is not ideal, especially in SAR. Conclusion: The current cross-sectional study demonstrated that the patients with SAR exhibited more severe overall clinical symptoms than those with PAR, especially nasal rhinorrhea and gritty and watery eyes. Both of the two disease entities have poor control under standardized medication treatment, especially in SAR. Further multicenter longitudinal studies that involve larger and more diverse populations should be conducted to provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the condition.

Value of Opening the Middle Meatus in Patients With Nasal Airway Obstruction.

OBJECTIVES: While surgeries to correct the anatomical malformations that cause nasal airway obstruction (NAO) are generally successful, the outcomes of such procedures are often unsatisfactory. The aim of the present study was to assess the value of opening the middle meatus in patients with NAO. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with nasal obstruction due to nasal septal deviation were included in this study. After randomization, the middle meatus was either opened or not opened during septoplasty. The patients were evaluated through pre- and postoperative rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of subjective symptoms along with responses to the 20-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20) were obtained before surgery and three months after surgery. RESULTS: The VAS scores and SNOT-20 responses improved significantly in both groups after surgery. The effective treatment rate based on the nasal congestion score (NCS) was 64.7% in the single group (septoplasty alone) and 100% in the combined group (septoplasty in conjunction with opening the middle meatus), and the difference was statistically significant (P = .018). In both groups, surgery significantly improved nasal flow, resistance, minimal cross-sectional area, cross-sectional area 6 cm (CA6) from the anterior nostril and nasal volume. Nasal volume and CA6 after surgery were statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .004 and .019, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Opening the middle meatus may further improve the subjective perception of patency on the basis of septoplasty.

Serum immunoglobulin G4 has limited diagnostic value in immunoglobulin G4-related chronic rhinosinusitis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the profiles and factors influencing serum IgG4 levels and evaluate the diagnostic value of serum IgG4 in IgG4-related CRS. METHODS: This was a prospective study analyzing data from 288 hospitalized CRS patients who had undergone endoscopic sinus surgery from July 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018. Data were analyzed for correlations between elevated serum IgG4 concentrations (> 135 mg/dL) and clinical symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, loss of smell, headache and/or facial pain), endoscopic presentation (Lund-Kennedy scores), allergic status (total and allergen-specific IgE), and pathological features (IgG4+ and IgG+ cells). RESULTS: Overall, 43/288 (14.9%) CRS patients had elevated serum IgG4 levels > 135 mg/dL. Comparison of the clinical parameters between patients with elevated and normal serum IgG4 levels demonstrated serum total IgE levels to be significantly different (P = 0.003) between the two groups; and significantly correlated with serum IgG4 level in CRS subjects (P = 0.000; r = 0.232), particularly CRS patients with nasal polyps (P = 0.000; r = 0.259). In contrast, the ratio of plasmocyte/inflammatory cells and IgG4+ cells/IgG+ plasmocytes, and IgG4+ plasma cells/HPF in sinus mucosa were not significantly different between the groups and no patient with elevated serum IgG4 demonstrated ratio of IgG4+ /IgG+ cells > 40% or > 10 IgG4+ plasma cells/HPF. CONCLUSION: Serum IgG4 concentration is not related to the clinical phenotype of CRS and is likely to be of limited value when used alone in the diagnosis of IgG4-related CRS.