Acupuncture is associated with a positive effect on odour discrimination in patients with postinfectious smell loss-a controlled prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Smell disorders are common in the general population and occur e.g., after infections, trauma or idiopathically Treatment strategies for smell loss range from surgery, medication to olfactory training, depending on the pathology, but they are limited This study examined the effect of acupuncture on olfactory function. METHODS: Sixty patients with smell loss following infections of the upper respiratory tract were included in this investigation Half of the study group were randomly assigned to verum acupuncture and the other half to sham acupuncture Olfaction was measured by means of the "Sniffin' Sticks" test battery (odour threshold, discrimination and identification). RESULTS: Compared to sham acupuncture, verum was associated with an improvement of smell function as measured by the TDI score (p = 0.039) The improvement was largely determined by improvement in odour discrimination, and was significantly better in patients with a shorter duration of the disorder. CONCLUSION: The present results suggest that acupuncture is an effective supplementary treatment option for patients with olfactory loss.

The effectiveness of acupuncture compared to loratadine in patients allergic to house dust mites.

Background. The aim of this work was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture and its impact on the immune system in comparison to loratadine in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis caused by house dust mites. Methods. In this study, 24 patients suffering from persistent allergic rhinitis induced by house dust mites were treated either with acupuncture (n = 15) or with loratadine (n = 9). The evaluation of the data was based on the subjective and the objective rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores, specific and total IgE, and interleukins (IL-4, IL-10, and IFN- γ ) as markers for the activity of Th1 or Th2 cells. Results. The treatments with acupuncture as well as with loratadine were considered effective in the patients' subjective assessment, whereby the effect of the acupuncture tended to be assessed as more persistent after the end of treatment. A change in the specific or the total IgE was not detectable in either group. The interleukin profile showed the tendency of an increasing IL-10 value in the acupuncture group. The results of the study show that the effectiveness of acupuncture is comparable to that of loratadine. Conclusion. Acupuncture is a clinically effective form of therapy in the treatment of patients suffering from persistent allergic rhinitis. The results indicate the probability of an immunomodulatory effect.

Acupuncture in allergic rhinitis: A Mini-Review.

Acupuncture is a therapy method known for millennia with apparently polygenetic roots. It is traditionally practiced in East Asian countries. During the recent fifty years, it has found wide applications in Europe as well. Today acupuncture is one of the most important parts of modern complementary medicine. Questions concerning the mechanism of action and efficacy of acupuncture, among others in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, still lead to many scientific discussions. This review summarizes the modern understanding of possible mechanisms of acupuncture as well as it presents the current state of clinical studies relating to the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Further investigations are necessary to confirm acupuncture as an effective therapy of allergic rhinitis.

Safety of a rush immunotherapy build-up schedule with depigmented polymerized allergen extracts.

Conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for allergy treatment needs several injections over several weeks to reach the maintenance dose. Shorter up-dosing regimens are desired but limited by the potential of side effects. This study was designed to compare the safety of Depigoid (Laboratorios LETI, Spain)-SCIT 1 day versus 3 weeks up-dosing in patients with Type 1 allergy caused by clinically relevant sensitization against tree pollen, grass pollen, and house-dust mites. A total of 303 patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis were included. A rush build-up schedule administering 0.2 mL and then 0.3 mL of the concentrate at day 1 followed by 0.5 mL at day 28 was compared with a conventional 4-week build-up schedule. The number of patients reaching the maintenance phase without systemic reactions or major deviation from treatment schedule were compared. Of the rush 91.8% and in the conventional group 90.9% reached the maintenance phase without dose modification. Neither the proportions of patients with systemic reactions (5.8% rush versus 2% conventional) nor the proportions of patients with local reactions differed significantly between the two regimens (24% rush versus 11% conventional). There was no difference with respect to the applied allergen group. The proposed rush build-up schedule for the immunotherapy treatment with depigmented allergoids without premedication is safe and not inferior to the conventional schedule.

Thresholds in nasal histamine challenge in patients with allergic rhinitis, patients with hyperreflectory rhinopathy, and healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Characteristic symptoms of hyperreflectory rhinopathy include recurrent sneezing, nasal obstruction, and nasal secretion without an allergic background. The diagnosis can only be made if all differential diagnoses have been excluded. So far no clinical test has been established to reliably diagnose hyperreactivity of the nasal mucosa. The present study aimed to investigate whether nasal provocation with histamine allows identification of patients with hyperreflectory rhinopathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-sided nasal challenge with histamine was applied to 13 patients with allergic rhinitis, 13 patients with hyperreflectory rhinitis, and 12 healthy volunteers. Histamine concentrations used were 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 mg/mL. Test results were quantified using a symptom score (positive at values above 3) and active anterior rhinomanometry (positive at a reduction of airflow of 40% or more in comparison to challenge with solvent). RESULTS: While there was a significant difference between controls and patients with allergic rhinitis or hyperreflectory rhinopathy, respectively, no significant difference was observed between the two groups of patients. Results indicated that one-sided nasal provocation with histamine at a concentration of 1 mg/mL is sufficient to separate healthy subjects from patients with hyperreactivity of the nasal mucosa. In terms of the differentiation between subjects with hyperreactivity of the nasal mucosa and healthy controls, the sensitivity of one-sided nasal histamine provocation with 1 mg/mL was found to be 100%; its specificity was 83% if it was evaluated by rhinomanometry and symptom score. CONCLUSION: The present results indicate that one-sided nasal challenge with histamine at a concentration of 1 mg/mL is sufficient to separate healthy subjects from patients with hyperreactivity of the nasal mucosa. However, the test does not differentiate between patients with allergic rhinitis and patients with hyperreflectory rhinitis.