Levels of IgE sensitization drive symptom thresholds in allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common respiratory disease encompassing a variety of phenotypes. Patients can be sensitized to 1 or more allergens. There are indications that polysensitization is associated with more severe disease. However, the extent to which the level of sensitization is associated with clinical disease variability, underlying the distinct nature of AR from AR+ conjunctivitis or AR+ asthma, is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate phenotypical differences between monosensitized and polysensitized patients with AR and to quantify their symptomatic variability. METHODS: A total of 565 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of AR were included in this cross-sectional study. Of those, 155 were monosensitized and 410 were polysensitized. Interactions between sensitization levels and the reporting of different symptoms of AR and co-morbidities, disease duration, and impact were assessed. Furthermore, patients were stratified into monosensitized, oligosensitized, and polysensitized to assess whether the effect of sensitization on the phenotype was ranked. RESULTS: Polysensitized patients reported itchy eyes significantly more often (P = .001) and had a higher number of ocular (P = .005), itch-related (P = .036), and total symptoms (P = .007) than monosensitized patients. In addition, polysensitized adults and children more often reported wheeze (P = .015) and throat-clearing (P = .04), respectively. Polysensitization was associated with more burdensome AR based on a visual analog scale (P = .005). Increased sensitization level was reflected in more itchy eyes, a higher number of ocular, itch-related, and total number of symptoms, and disease burden. CONCLUSION: With an increasing number of sensitizations, patients with AR experience an increased diversity of symptoms. Multimorbidity-related symptoms increase with sensitization rank, suggesting organ-specific thresholds.

Differences in the suppression of distortion product otoacoustic emissions by contralateral white noise between patients with acute or chronic tinnitus.

OBJECTIVE: The mechanisms underlying the shift from acute tinnitus to chronic remain obscure. An association between tinnitus and medial olivocochlear bundle (MOCB) reflex dysfunction has been hypothesised by several studies. The differences between participants with acute and chronic tinnitus have not yet been investigated. DESIGN: Participants were examined with distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) suppression elicited by contralateral white noise. They were compared in terms of frequency regions with non-recordable DPOAEs, suppression amplitudes and the presence of DPOAE enhancement. STUDY SAMPLE: Eighteen participants with acute tinnitus, 40 age-matched adults with chronic tinnitus and 17 controls were included. All participants (aged 34.7 ± 9.6years; mean ± Standard deviation) had normal hearing. Tinnitus was bilateral in 22 participants and unilateral in 36. RESULTS: Ears with chronic tinnitus presented significantly lower DPOAE suppression amplitudes than ears with acute tinnitus (p < 0.0001). Both acute and chronic tinnitus ears present a high prevalence of enhancement, significantly different from controls (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0002, respectively). Non-recordable DPOAEs were significantly more frequent in the chronic than in the acute tinnitus and control groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between study groups indicate that when tinnitus becomes chronic, DPOAEs suppression presents changes that might reveal corresponding steps in tinnitus pathophysiology. Treatment implications are discussed.

The universal newborn hearing screening program in a public hospital: The importance of the day of examination.

OBJECTIVES: Newborn hearing screening programs are already implemented in many countries worldwide. Nonetheless there is still no consensus about the most proper post-birth day of examination. The purpose of this study was to assess the most appropriate day of universal hearing screening program in a public hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in "Attiko University National Health System Hospital" and included 2494 newborns. They were examined before discharge from the hospital, using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs). RESULTS: From 2494 neonates included in the study, 2129 (85.4%) bilaterally passed the screening examination, while 365 (14.6%) failed the test. Higher levels of "pass" result per day of life were presented the third (90%) and fourth (94%) day of life. These days the referral scores were lower, reaching 6% the 4th post-birth day. CONCLUSION: All infants should be screened for their hearing in the first days of life as otoacoustic emissions can be recorded from the first 24 h of life. If the babies stay in the maternity unit for more that 1-2 days for any reason (protocol of the maternity unit, parents leave in remote areas, etc.) we recommend the 4th day of life as the most appropriate day of examination in order to minimize the false positive ("refer") results at the initial examination.

Cochlear implantation in atelectasis and chronic otitis media: long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term results of cochlear implantation in cases with chronic otitis media or atelectasis using a single surgical technique performed in a single cochlear implant center. PATIENTS: Nine patients who were implanted using the blind-pit closure of the external ear canal technique (4 patients with adhesive otitis media and 5 with radical mastoid cavities). Follow-up ranged from 18 months to 12 years (mean, 7.05 yr). INTERVENTION: The surgical procedure was performed in 2 stages. The first stage included canal wall down or lowering any high facial ridge in previous mastoidectomies, removal of all skin, and blind-pit closure of the external ear canal without mastoid cavity obliteration or eustachian tube obliteration. Cochlear implantation was performed 6 months after the first surgical procedure. RESULTS: All operations were uneventful, and during cochlear implantation, as a second stage, no epithelia or other problems were encountered. No serious complications were encountered during the follow-up period. One case had a minor disruption of the external canal closure that was reclosed successfully under local anesthesia. All patients were using the device at the last follow-up interval with no device problems. CONCLUSION: Blind-sac closure of the external ear canal without obliteration is a rather safe surgical procedure in cases with chronic otitis media or atelectasis. Meticulous surgical technique and proper patient selection are of paramount importance. However, a 2-stage procedure may not always be necessary and might best be confined to those patients who have active inflammatory disease at the primary procedure.

Simultaneous and sequential bilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss: are they different from unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss?

AIM: To compare bilateral (BSSHL) with unilateral (USSHL) sudden sensorineural hearing loss. METHODS AND SUBJECTS: Two hundred and thirty-two patients with USSHL, 11 with simultaneous BSSHL and 7 with sequential BSSHL, who were older than 15 years had onset of hearing loss <30 days, no head injuries or history of acoustic trauma. All patients received the same treatment (prednisolone). RESULTS: Hearing loss was more severe in simultaneous BSSHL in comparison to sequential BSSHL (p = 0.01) or USSHL (p = 0.03). Autoimmune diseases were far more common in simultaneous BSSHL (36% of patients) than USSHL. Positive antinuclear antibody was found in half of BSSHL patients and in only 8% of unilateral cases (p = 0.01). The frequency of hearing improvement was much lower in simultaneous BSSHL than in USSHL (p = 0.001). Complete or partial improvement was noted in 74% of unilateral cases versus 27% in simultaneous bilateral cases. Patients with sequential BSSHL improved in a similar way to unilateral cases. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous BSSHL, sequential BSSHL and USSHL may have a completely different profile and should not be managed as one disease. Hearing loss, underlying autoimmune diseases, antinuclear antibodies, and improvement/recovery of hearing loss vary in a degree that implies different pathophysiology and prognosis.