The allergen nasal provocation testing（NPT）, in which allergens are applied directly to the nasal mucosa under standard and controlled conditions to provoke the main symptoms of allergic rhinitis（AR）, reproduces the response of the upper respiratory tract to natural exposure to allergens under controlled conditions and is the only test currently available to confirm nasal reactivity to allergens. It is invaluable in studying the mechanisms of AR and in assessing the response to novel anti-allergic treatments. The test may play an increasingly important role in clinical practice, especially in the identification of local AR, the diagnosis of occupational AR, the clarification of the composition of allergens, the assessment of the efficacy of AR treatment and the selection of candidates undergoing allergen immunotherapy. This article reviewed the application of NPT in the diagnosis of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, and also introduces the indications, contraindications, advantages and limitations of NPT in evaluating nasal response.
Humans ; Allergens ; Rhinitis/diagnosis* ; Nasal Provocation Tests ; Rhinitis, Allergic/diagnosis* ; Nasal Mucosa

Objective:To compare the clinical value of visual analogue scale （VAS）, Lebel scale and total nasal symptom scores （TNSS） in evaluating nasal allergen provocation test （NAPT）. Methods:A total of 151 patients suspected of allergic rhinitis admitted to the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery of our hospital from April 2020 to September 2020 were included, of which 76 were positive for house dust mites and 75 were negative for allergens. Nasal airway resistance（NAR） was measured by active anterior nasal manometry. Nasal symptoms were evaluated by VAS, Lebel and TNSS. House dust mite allergen was used for NAPT by spray method. An increase≥40% in NAR was used as the gold standard for objective evaluation of NAPT. ROC curves of VAS, Lebel and TNSS were drawn to compare the evaluation effectiveness of different subjective evaluation methods, and the optimal critical point of each ROC curve was obtained. Results:With NAR increased by ≥40% as the gold standard, the area under ROC curve of VAS was 0.884, and the sensitivity and specificity were 97.75% and 80.65%, respectively. The area under ROC curve of Lebel was 0.773, and the sensitivity and specificity were 68.54% and 75.81%, respectively. The area under ROC curve of TNSS was 0.792, and the sensitivity and specificity were 68.54% and 79.03%, respectively. There was no significant difference between Lebel and TNSS（P>0.05）. The VAS differed significantly from Lebel and TNSS（P<0.05）. The Kappa values of VAS, Lebel, TNSS and NAR were 0.803, 0.432 and 0.459, respectively. Conclusion:The VAS, Lebel, TNSS subjective scale and NAR are consistent in evaluating the efficacy of NAPT, with the VAS assessment showing highest consistency with NAR. As objective assessment instruments are not widely used in China, subjective assessment method could be adopted to evaluate the efficacy of NAPT in clinical practice, and VAS scale is recommended as a priority.
Animals ; Humans ; Allergens ; Nasal Provocation Tests/methods* ; Rhinitis, Allergic/diagnosis* ; Nose ; Pyroglyphidae

Objective:To investigate the value of nasal provocation test（NPT） in evaluating the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy（AIT） in patients with dust mite induced allergic rhinitis（AR）. Methods:A total of 83 patients with dust mite induced AR with/without asthma were included. Symptom score（SS）, daily medication score（DMS）, combined symptom and medication score（CSMS）, rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire（RQLQ）, NPT and skin prick test（SPT） were assessed before and after 1 year AIT. Results:There were statistical differences in SS（P<0.000 1）, DMS（P<0.000 1）, CSMS（P<0.000 1）, and RQLQ（P<0.000 1） after 1 year of AIT compared with pre-treatment. The effective rate of CSMS was 73.49%, and the effective rate of NPT was 42.17%. CSMS was consistent with NPT in efficacy assessment（Kappa=0.437, P<0.001）; while in 54 patients with pre-treatment NPT concentrations other than the original concentration, CMSM and NPT showed better consistence（Kappa=0.895, P<0.001）. Among the 48 patients with ineffective NPT assessment in the first year, 25 patients completed the second-year follow-up, and 12 patients（48.00%） showed effective in NPT. However, 10 out of 12 patients（83.33%） with NPT concentration other than original solution pre-treatment showed effective NPT at the second year. Conclusion:NPT can be used as one of the indicators for efficacy evaluation for dust mite induced AR patients, especially for patients with positive NPT induced at lower concentrations before treatment.
Animals ; Humans ; Pyroglyphidae ; Allergens ; Nasal Provocation Tests ; Quality of Life ; Rhinitis, Allergic/therapy* ; Desensitization, Immunologic ; Skin Tests ; Dust

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated the seasonal variation of nonspecific hyperreactivity by performing the cold dry air (CDA) provocation test in both summer and winter in patients with rhinitis. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: We performed the CDA provocation test in 57 patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) or non-allergic rhinitis (NAR). Depending on the season and the type of rhinitis, we divided patients into four groups (Summer AR group, n=17; Winter AR group, n=15; Summer NAR group, n=18 and Winter NAR group, n=7) and compared the changes in nasal symptoms, total nasal volume (TNV), and minimal cross-sectional area (MCA) measured by acoustic rhinometry after CDA provocation in each group. RESULTS: When the CDA provocation was performed for AR patients in summer, nasal symptoms improved slightly, which was significantly different from those shown in winter (Summer AR vs. Winter AR, p=0.012). In addition, there was a significant difference in symptom change between AR and NAR patients in the summer (Summer AR vs. Summer NAR, p=0.033). There was no significant difference in TNV or MCA changes after CDA provocation depending on the type of rhinitis and season (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: When performing CDA provocation in AR patients in summer, the examiner should pay attention to the possible paradoxical response.
Humans ; Methods ; Nasal Provocation Tests ; Rhinitis ; Rhinitis, Allergic ; Rhinometry, Acoustic ; Seasons

Local allergic rhinitis (LAR) is a localized nasal allergic response in the absence of systemic atopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of LAR in Korean rhinitis patients compared to allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR). A total of 304 rhinitis patients were enrolled from November 2014 to March 2016. A skin prick test, serum total and specific immunoglobulin E, and a nasal provocation test (NPT) with house dust mite (HDM) were performed on all patients. Subjects also documented changes in rhinitis symptoms before and after NPT. Seventy-four patients with nasal hyper-reactivity and 80 patients with subclinical allergy were excluded. AR was diagnosed in 69 (46.0%) patients, NAR in 75 (50.0%) patients, and LAR to HDM in 6 (4.0%) patients. The average medication score and disease duration of each group were 14.5 points and 77.6 months in AR, 12.1 point and 51.1 months in NAR, and 17.7 point and 106.0 months in LAR, respectively. There were no significant differences in the baseline nasal symptom score of the three groups. However, after NPT with HDM, the score of rhinitis, itching, and obstructive were 4.83±1.47 vs. 1.95±2.53, 3.00±2.10 vs. 1.45±2.06, and 5.50±1.38 vs. 2.57±2.84 in LAR and NAR, respectively (p<0.05). LAR patients had longer duration of disease and tended to be older and have higher medication score than other rhinitis patients.
Dust* ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Immunoglobulin E ; Immunoglobulins ; Nasal Provocation Tests ; Prevalence* ; Pruritus ; Pyroglyphidae* ; Rhinitis ; Rhinitis, Allergic* ; Skin

PURPOSE: We previously reported that the skin prick test was sensitive and the serum specific immunoglobulin E test was specific for predicting positive airway responses to house dust mites (HDMs) in patients with asthma. Because the nose and bronchus are one airway, the nasal provocation test would be more specific for predicting the bronchial responses to HDM than the skin test. METHODS: The allergy skin prick test and nasal and bronchial provocation tests using HDM (Dermatophagoides farinae) were performed in 41 young men (age, 19–28 years) who wanted military certification for asthma. The nasal responses to HDM was scored according to the severity of rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nose itching. RESULTS: The prevalence of a positive skin prick test to HDM did not significantly differ between patients with (n=24) and without (n=17) an early airway reaction (EAR; 79.2% vs 70.6%, P=0.534). However, the prevalence of a positive nasal test was significantly higher in the airway responders than in the others (37.5% vs 0%, P=0.005). The concordance of a positive response to the nasal test (κ=0.332, P=0.004) but not to the skin prick test (κ=0.091, P=0.529) was significant with an EAR. The diagnostic sensitivity of the nasal test (37.5%) was lower than that of the skin prick test (79.2%), but the specificity was higher (100% vs 29.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The skin prick test is more sensitive, whereas the nasal test is more specific and accurate, for predicting an EAR to HDM in patients with asthma.
Asthma* ; Bronchi ; Bronchial Provocation Tests ; Certification ; Dermatophagoides farinae ; Dust* ; Ear ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Immunoglobulin E ; Immunoglobulins ; Male ; Military Personnel ; Nasal Provocation Tests ; Nose ; Prevalence ; Pruritus ; Pyroglyphidae* ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Skin ; Skin Tests ; Sneezing

Recently, the rhinitis work group of the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology developed a practice guideline on allergic rhinitis. The group consisted of physicians, pediatricians, and otolaryngologists. Here, the guideline is adapted for clarity and for ease of use by physicians. To manage allergic rhinitis well, accurate diagnosis is most important. In patients with rhinitis symptoms, the first step is to perform a skin prick test to inhalant allergens, and/or to measure allergen-specific immunoglobulin E in serum. Next, allergic rhinitis should be diagnosed upon documenting the association between positive allergens and rhinitis symptoms, via patient history or allergen nasal provocation test. Allergic rhinitis should be differentiated from non-allergic rhinitis, because treatment modalities differ between the two. Allergic rhinitis should be effectively managed with allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, allergen immunotherapy, surgical treatment, and/or saline irrigation. Second-generation antihistamines or leukotriene modifiers may be used for mild-to-moderate forms, and intranasal steroids may be effective for moderate-to-severe forms. Allergic rhinitis is closely associated with asthma. Spirometry should be performed initially for asthma diagnosis, if asthma-like symptoms are present.
Allergens ; Allergy and Immunology ; Asthma ; Desensitization, Immunologic ; Diagnosis ; Drug Therapy ; Histamine Antagonists ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Immunoglobulin E ; Immunoglobulins ; Nasal Provocation Tests ; Rhinitis ; Rhinitis, Allergic* ; Skin ; Spirometry ; Steroids

PURPOSE: Nasal Cellulose Powder (NCP), which can prevent from binding an allergen to nasal mucosa, may reduce allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms in dust mite-sensitized children. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of NCP in improving clinical symptoms of a nasal airflow limitation and the response of nasal inflammatory cells. METHODS: Children with dust mite-sensitized AR aged 6–18 years were recruited. After a 4-week run-in period, NCP or a placebo was administered, 1 puff per nostril 3 times daily for 4 weeks. The nasal provocation test (NPT) with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p) was performed before and after treatment. The daily symptom scores (DSS), daily medication scores (DMS), the peak nasal inspiratory flows (PNIF), nasal airway resistance (NAR), as well as the maximum tolerated dose of NPT and eosinophil counts in nasal scraping, were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty children (30 NCP and 30 placebos) were enrolled. Before treatment, there were no significant differences in age, dust mite control measures, DSS, DMS, PNIF, NAR, the maximum tolerated dose of NPT, or nasal eosinophil scores between children receiving NCP and placebos. After treatment, there were no significant differences between the NCP and placebo groups in the median (range) of the outcomes—DSS: 2.06 (0.18–3.77) vs. 1.79 (0.08–7.79), P=0.756; DMS: 1.60 (0–5.13) vs. 0.56 (0–4.84), P=0.239; PNIF (L/min): 110 (60–160) vs. 100 (50–180), P=0.870; NAR (Pa/cm³/s): 0.40 (0.20–0.97) vs. 0.39 (0.24–1.32), P=0.690; the maximum tolerated dose of NPT and the nasal eosinophil scores: 1 (0–4) vs. 1 (0–4), P=0.861. CONCLUSIONS: NCP treatment may not be more effective than placebo treatment in dust mite-sensitized AR children.
Airway Resistance ; Cellulose* ; Child ; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus ; Dust ; Eosinophils ; Humans ; Maximum Tolerated Dose ; Nasal Mucosa ; Nasal Provocation Tests ; Placebos ; Pyroglyphidae ; Rhinitis, Allergic* ; Tick Control

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical usefulness of Allerkin (Lofarma) for nasal provocation testing (NPT) in patients with rhinitis symptoms, by examining changes in nasal symptoms and acoustic parameters after exposure to house dust mite (HDM) extract. METHODS: Twenty patients (16 males and 4 females, mean age: 29.6±14.6 years) were enrolled. We performed skin prick test (SPT) before and 15 and 30 minutes after intranasal challenge with Allerkin HDM extract, and we evaluated symptom changes (nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching) using a visual analogue scale. We also evaluated changes in acoustic parameters such as total nasal volume (TNV) and minimal cross-sectional area (MCA) before and after challenge. RESULTS: Group A (the nonallergic group, n=8) showed negative results for all tested aeroallergens in SPT and nonprovocative results ( < 25% decrease of TNV and MCA from the baseline value) in NPT. Group B (the allergic group, n=7) exhibited strongly positive results (wheal size larger than that of histamine) for HDM allergens on SPT. Group C (the local allergic group, n=5) showed negative results on SPT, but a provocative response on NPT (>29% decrease in TNV/MCA from the baseline value). Patients in group C showed significant aggravation of nasal obstruction compared to those in group A (P < 0.05). Thirty minutes after HDM challenge, patients in groups B and C showed significantly greater decreases in MCA compared to those in group A (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Allerkin HDM extract can be a useful provocative agent in NPT for diagnosing allergic rhinitis and local allergic rhinitis.
Acoustics ; Allergens ; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus ; Dust* ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Nasal Obstruction ; Nasal Provocation Tests* ; Pyroglyphidae* ; Rhinitis ; Rhinitis, Allergic ; Rhinometry, Acoustic ; Skin ; Sneezing

OBJECTIVES: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is common disease in otorhinolaryngology and will lead to lower airway abnormality. However, the only lung function in CRS patients and associated factors have not been much studied. METHODS: One hundred patients with CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP group), 40 patients with CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP group), and 100 patients without CRS were enrolled. The difference in lung function was compared. Meanwhile, CRSwNP and CRSsNP group were required to undergo a bronchial provocation or dilation test. Additionally, subjective and objective outcomes were measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS), 20-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20), Lund-Mackay score, Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score. The correlation and regression methods were used to analyze the relationship between their lung function and the above parameters. RESULTS: The forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF25-75) of CRSwNP group were significantly lower than other groups (P<0.05). On peak expiratory flow, there was no difference between three groups. In CRSwNP group, FEV1 was negatively correlated with peripheral blood eosinophil count (PBEC) and duration of disease (r=–0.348, P=0.013 and r=–0.344, P=0.014, respectively), FEF25-75 negatively with VAS, SNOT-20 (r=–0.490, P=0.028 and r=–0.478, P=0.033, respectively) in CRSsNP group. The incidence of positive bronchial provocation and dilation test was lower in CRSwNP group (10% and 0%, respectively), with both 0% in CRSsNP group. The multiple linear regression analysis indicated that change ratio of FEV1 before and after bronchial provocation or dilation test were correlated with PBEC in CRSwNP group (β=0.403, P=0.006). CONCLUSION: CRS leading to impaired maximum ventilation and small airway is associated with the existence of nasal polyp. Lung function impairments can be reflected by PBEC, duration, VAS, and SNOT-20. In CRSwNP patients, PBEC is independent predictor of FEV₁ change ratio.
Bronchial Hyperreactivity ; Bronchial Provocation Tests ; Eosinophils ; Forced Expiratory Volume ; Humans ; Incidence ; Linear Models ; Lung* ; Nasal Polyps ; Otolaryngology ; Ventilation ; Vital Capacity