Quality of life is significantly impaired in nonallergic rhinitis patients.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to the well-known significant impairment of quality of life (QoL) in allergic rhinitis (AR), the degree of impairment in QoL in nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) remained unknown for a long time, due to a lack of a validated questionnaire to assess QoL in the NAR patient group. In this study, a validation of the mini-RQLQ questionnaire in NAR patients was performed, followed by an assessment of QoL in NAR patients compared to AR and healthy controls. Secondly, use of medication and treatment satisfaction in AR and NAR was assessed. METHODS: The study was an observational cohort study in 287 AR and 160 NAR patients. Patients with symptoms of rhinitis were recruited from a tertiary care outpatient clinic of the Otorhinolaryngology Department. Allergic rhinitis (AR) was defined as one or more positive results on skin prick testing and clinically relevant symptoms of rhinitis related to their sensitization. Nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) was defined as clinically relevant symptoms of rhinitis but without positive results on skin prick testing. The mini-RQLQ was successfully validated in this study for NAR patients. RESULTS: Quality of life (QoL) in NAR patients was equally-and for some aspects even more-impaired compared to AR. More than half of both AR and NAR patients were unsatisfied with treatment. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate a significant impairment in both AR and NAR patients in their QoL combined with a low treatment satisfaction, emphasizing the need for adequate treatment, especially in the NAR patient group.

Nasal hyper-reactivity is a common feature in both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Nasal hyper-reactivity is an increased sensitivity of the nasal mucosa to various nonspecific stimuli. Both allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) patients can elicit nasal hyper-reactivity symptoms. Differences in the prevalence or type of nasal hyper-reactivity in AR and NAR patients are largely unknown. In this study, we quantitatively and qualitatively assessed nasal hyper-reactivity in AR and NAR. METHODS: In the first part, an analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed to reveal patient-reported symptoms of hyper-reactivity. In the second part, cold dry air provocation (CDA) was performed as a hyper-reactivity measure in AR and NAR patients and healthy controls, and symptoms scores, nasal secretions and peak nasal inspiratory flow were measured. Comparisons were made between AR and NAR patients in both studies. RESULTS: The database analysis revealed high hyper-reactivity prevalence in AR (63.4%) and NAR (66.9%). There were no differences between AR and NAR in terms of the number or type of hyper-reactivity stimuli. Hyper-reactivity to physical stimuli did not exclude a response to chemical stimuli, or vice versa. CDA provocation resulted in a significant increase in rhinitis symptoms and the amount of nasal secretions in AR and NAR patients, but not in controls. CONCLUSIONS: We found no quantitative or qualitative differences in nasal hyper-reactivity between AR and NAR patients. It is not possible to differentiate NAR subpopulations based on physical or chemical stimuli.