PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Nasal Provocation Tests”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1975

Rhino-rheo-manometric (R.R.M.) nasal provocation test.

The nasal provocation test--which has been considered till now too much time-consuming and troublesome for the patient--becomes rapid and simple by the use of the rhino-rheo-manometry. It is possible, by this method, to evaluate the conductance of a single nasal fossa and its reduction after allergen challenge. The results of test performed in patients suffering from extrinsic perennial nasal atopy by Dermatophagoides pt. have proved that the test becomes rapid and not troublesome by using the rhino-rheo-manometry. This method, giving a provocation threshold, may be used both in diagnosis and control of specific immunotherapy.

Antigen-Antibody Reactions↗
PubMed1988

Immunotherapy with partially purified and standardized tree pollen extracts. II. Results of skin prick tests and nasal provocation tests from a three-year double-blind study of patients treated with pollen extracts either of birch or combinations of alder, birch and hazel.

Patients allergic to tree pollen entered a 3-year course of immunotherapy (1980-83) with either birch pollen extracts alone (n = 26) or patient-tailored extracts of birch, alder and hazel pollen (n = 27). The clinical and immunological results of this study are published elsewhere. This paper contains an evaluation of skin prick test and nasal provocation test results. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups concerning these two parameters. In both groups the allergen-specific sensitivity in the skin showed seasonal variations but a significant decrease. During the years of treatment there was also a significant decrease in the specific sensitivity of the nasal mucosa. With the present demands for purification and standardization of allergen extracts it is of practical and economic interest to know that tree pollen-allergic patients showing positive reactions to birch, alder and hazel extracts can be effectively treated using birch pollen extract alone.

Asthma↗
PubMed1977

Basic study of nasal provocative test first report: side, site of the nose, size of site and allergen amount.

The methodology of the provocative nasal test has varied according to the investigators. In order to establish a standard method of this test quantification of the nasal challenge, including the amount of the allergen, nasal site, side and size of allergen deposition, was studied. From the results obtained it is preferable to use the end point test and to apply allergen to the anterior part of the inferior turbinate in a 7mm2 size of surface area, bilaterally. An alternative test is to use a fixed amount of allergen (500 mug house dust in house dust allergy).

Allergens↗
PubMed1988

Nasal provocation testing: an objective assessment for nasal and eustachian tube obstruction.

Nasal provocative testing is the introduction of a specific factor into the nose and the subsequent assessment of the pathophysiologic changes induced by the challenge. The provocative test primarily affects the nasal airway but also may affect the adjacent organs, including the eustachian tube, middle ear, sinuses, and lower respiratory tract. Recent advances in the measurement of nasal airway resistance with microcomputer-assisted rhinomanometry have improved the objective assessment of nasal airway obstruction. Eustachian tube obstruction has been shown after nasal provocation by a new procedure, sonotubometry, which can be performed in series with rhinomanometry and pulmonary spirometry. As will be described these procedures have helped elucidate the extent and pathophysiology of diseases affecting the upper airway, especially allergic rhinitis. At present, nasal provocation is primarily a clinical investigative test. It is anticipated that with further development and refinement, it can be used to a greater extent in the diagnosis and management of nasal diseases.

Allergens↗
PubMed1988

Improved diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis by the use of nasal provocation tests.

A simple and safe method of nasal provocation for out-patients that requires no special equipment is described. A total of 2,645 cases were tested by nasal provocation tests. Of the total, 1,175 were tested with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, 825 with mixed grass pollens, 352 with plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and 125 for cats and correlating nasal tests with skin tests yielded 80%, 90%, and 85%, respectively. Immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis was only considered justifiable when the nasal provocation test was positive. The nasal provocation test was repeated at the end of the normal course of injections recommended by the manufacturer. If the nasal provocation test was still positive, further injections were given until the test became negative. This method of improving diagnostic accuracy and monitoring results of immunotherapy was used with both aqueous extracts which were used for skin testing (Australian Government Commonwealth Serum Laboratories) and with Allpyral pyridine-extracted alum-precipitated extracts (Dome Laboratories, England). The number of injections of allergen required to convert a positive nasal provocation test to negative varied from 26 to 69 for mite aqueous injections with only 12 to 19 for mite suspension and 47 to 98 for grass aqueous injections compared with 12 to 36 for grass suspension. Direct provocation tests of the nose should give a more accurate diagnosis than RAST or skin tests and are required for monitoring therapy because considerable individual variations in sensitivity and response to treatment were demonstrated. Standard dosage schedules are not suitable for individual patients, who should have their immunotherapy personalized.

Allergens↗
PubMed1988

Occupational allergic rhinitis from guar gum.

Three cases of allergic rhinitis from a vegetable gum, guar gum, have been detected. Two subjects were exposed to fine guar gum powder (Emco Gum 563, Meyhall Chemical AG, Switzerland), an insulator in rubber cables, when opening cables in a power cable laboratory. After 1-2 years' exposure the patients developed rhinitis. Scratch-chamber tests, nasal provocation tests, nasal eosinophilia and a RAST test proved their allergy. A third subject developed allergic rhinitis from another guar gum product (Meyproid 5306, Meyhall Chemical AG) after 2 years' exposure in a paper factory. A positive skin test and nasal provocation test confirmed the diagnosis. A fourth case of possible allergy to guar gum after exposure to Meyproid 5306 in a paper factory is also presented. No final diagnosis was reached in this case (in 1974). The present subjects, only one of whom was atopic, developed allergy within 2 years, although their exposure to guar gum was not especially heavy. Therefore, when handling guar, adequate ventilation facilities should be provided and protective clothing, including a respiratory mask, should be worn.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Determination of eosinophil rate after nasal provocation test in allergic rhinitis diagnosis.

After nasal provocation test in patients with allergic rhinitis, using the allergen they were sensitized to, we have observed: 1) an increase in the percentage of nasal eosinophils after 2, 3, 24 and 48 hours; 2) sneezes, mainly in the first 30 minutes; 3) nasal obstruction in the first three hours; 4) absence of rhinorrhea, but not in all the patients; and 5) no predominance of nasal, auricular and/or palatine pruritus at any time. When patients without rhinitis, or with allergic rhinitis were stimulated using a pneumoallergen they were not sensitized to, no significative increase in the nasal eosinophils percentage was found. No symptoms were observed either. So, we can conclude that nasal secretion samples, for eosinophilia percentage determination, should be taken from 2 to 48 hours after nasal provocation, and that the most frequent symptoms, which are probably related to cellular changes, are nasal obstruction and sneezes.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Ferns and their allergenic importance: skin and nasal provocation tests to fern spore extract in allergic and non-allergic patients.

In our recent survey, fern spores were found to be the third most common airborne air spora in the Bangkok atmosphere; therefore, the significance of fern spores as a causative allergen was assessed in patients with allergic rhinitis. By using the extract from the spores of Acrostichum aureum Linn, which is a widespread fern, an intracutaneous test was done in 226 allergic rhinitis patients and 61.5% of these patients reacted positively. Nasal provocation test by using the same kind of fern spore extract was also performed in 24 allergic rhinitis patients and the positive reaction occurred in 70.8%. When skin tests and nasal provocation tests were performed in a group of 20 nonallergic ENT patients, only 20% gave weakly positive skin test reactions and 15% gave mild reactions to the nasal provocation test. The authors concluded that fern spores are potentially allergenic and allergists should be aware that ferns could be an important aeroallergen.

Humans↗
PubMed1992

The nasal provocation test in the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Behaviour and dynamics of nasal flow during the test.

We analyzed the value of the (n) coefficient of nasal flow in the formula of nasal resistances in order to: (1) calculate nasal flow during the course of the nasal provocation test, and (2) try to find out whether nasal flow maintains the same characteristics during the test. Our results show that values vary between 1.6589 and 1.8801, with a weighted mean of 1.7645--suggesting that the flow is of a mixed character--without significant differences during the course of the test. At the same time we carried out an analysis of the dynamics of nasal flow during nasal provocation.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1987

Nasal allergen sensitivity and mucosal IgE antibodies.

Skin tests, nasal provocation tests, nasal smear tests, and serum-radioallergosorbent tests were performed on 17 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis, who had suffered nasal congestion without receiving any antiallergic treatment. After the above tests, tissue-radioallergosorbent tests (t-RAST) were conducted to determine IgE antibody levels in inferior turbinate mucosal samples taken peroperatively. The results obtained in this study suggest that the allergen sensitivity of the nasal mucosa correlates to some extent with the mucosal IgE antibody level, and that the t-RAST can provide us with objective data about nasal allergen sensitivity.

Humans↗
PubMed1991

Effects of terfenadine and pseudoephedrine, alone and in combination in a nasal provocation test and in perennial rhinitis.

The effects of terfenadine and pseudoephedrine, alone and in combination, have been assessed in a nasal provocation test and in perennial rhinitis. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over nasal provocation test, twelve men allergic to grass pollen were treated with two daily doses of placebo, terfenadine 60 mg, pseudoephedrine 120 mg, or the combination of the two, for 2 days preceding each test. The allergic reaction threshold, based on rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal inspiratory peak flow rate, was raised significantly both by terfenadine and pseudoephedrine, and their effects appeared additive (repeated measures analysis of variance). In a double-blind, randomized clinical study of perennial rhinitis two parallel groups, the efficacy and tolerability of terfenadine and terfenadine-pseudoephedrine were compared in 50 patients. Symptoms and signs in both groups were improved after 14 days of treatment. Differences between groups showed a trend in favour of terfenadine-pseudoephedrine, for swelling of the nasal mucosa (rhinoscopy) they were statistically significant. Both medications were well tolerated overall, although adverse events and reactions were more frequent in the terfenadine-pseudoephedrine group. In conclusion, terfenadine-pseudoephedrine and its constituents taken alone were effective. The combination performed better, but adverse events were somewhat more frequent with the combination than with terfenadine alone.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Nasal provocation test with lysine acetylsalicylate in aspirin-sensitive patients.

The authors have studied nasal provocation testing (NPT) with aspirin in 45 aspirin-sensitive patients (40 affected by nasal polyposis) and in 38 aspirin-tolerant patients (27 affected by nasal polyposis). The test was positive in 37.7% of aspirin-intolerant subjects, but only in 7.9% of subjects in the control group (P less than .01).

Adult↗
PubMed1978

Basic study of nasal provocative test. Second report: assessment method on provocative reaction.

Because no simple and precise method is available to test intensity of the reaction resulted from a nasal provocative test in diagnosis of nasal allergy, comparisons were made among the conventional test methods of rhinoscopy (RS), rhinomanometry (RM) and the carbon powder elimination test (CET) devised by the authors. The rhinoscopy shows high positive rates and has advantages being free from any special equipment, prolonged time or the patients' cooperation, but also had disadvantages such as requirement of skill of examiner and problems in objectivity. The carbon powder elimination test is a preferable method in that it is not only equipped with the advantages of the rhinoscopy but also makes up for its disadvantages, but a disadvantage of CET is requirement of longer time than RS. Rhinomanometry had lower positive rates and requires a special equipment, prolonged time and the skillful patients' cooperation. The disadvantage is that its impracticableness in many patients--26% impracticableness even in adult patients, but the method is fully objective. From these findings the value of Carbon Powder Elimination Test in judging provoked reactions is recognized.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1988

The effect of levocabastine nasal spray in nasal provocation tests.

The effect of levocabastine, a new specific H1 antagonist, has been investigated against a placebo in nasal provocation tests on 42 allergic patients divided into two parallel groups. The results obtained show that it significantly inhibited the nasal reaction to the allergen and seems to have a long-lasting effect in allergic patients.

Administration, Intranasal↗