Journal List > Allergy Asthma Immunol Res > v.10(3) > 1095775

See the article "".
TOOLS
Gelardi, Puccinelli, Incorvaia, Passalacqua, Ciprandi, and Italian Cometa Study Group: The Relevance of Nasal Cytology in the Workup of House Dust Mite-Induced Allergic Rhinitis
Letter to the Editor

Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research 2018; 10(3): 283-284.

Published online: 3 April 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2018.10.3.283

The Relevance of Nasal Cytology in the Workup of House Dust Mite-Induced Allergic Rhinitis

Matteo Gelardi1, Paola Puccinelli2, Cristoforo Incorvaia3, Giovanni Passalacqua4, 5, Giorgio Ciprandi5; Italian Cometa Study Group

1Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Basic Medical Science, Neuroscience and Sensory Organs, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.

2Scientific, Pharmacovigilance and Regulatory Department, Stallergenes, Milan, Italy.

3Allergy/Pulmonary rehabilitation Unit, Istituti Clinici di Perfezionamento Hospital, Milan, Italy.

4Allergy and Respiratory Diseases, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

5Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.

Correspondence to: Giorgio Ciprandi, MD, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy. Tel: +39-10-35331820; Fax: +39-10-3538664; gio.cip@libero.it

Received 21 August 2017       Accepted 5 December 2017

Copyright © 2018 The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology • The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease

The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology • The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
We read with great interest the paper of Chen and colleagues.1 It highlights the practical role of nasal cytology (NC) in the management of allergic rhinitis (AR) in clinical practice.1 We would like to stimulate debate about this matter, reporting our experience in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) prescription. In this regard, house dust mites (HDMs) commonly cause AR, mainly in children, and AIT is the unique causal treatment.2 Although AIT has long duration, expensive cost, and sometimes limited efficacy, there is the need to well define the characteristics of ideal eligible candidates for HDM-AIT as recently appointed.3 On the other hand, AR may frequently be associated with other upper airway disorders, including nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). NAR presents symptoms caused by non-immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated pathogenesis. Different types of NAR may exist and NAR classification is based on NC assessment providing predominant infiltrating cells: eosinophils (NARES), mast cells (NARMA), both (NARESMA), and neutrophils (NARNE).4 In this context, an Italian multicenter observational survey (conducted in 17 allergy clinics) investigated the role of NC in the workup of AR patients with HDM allergy. Inclusion criteria were: age between 6 and 60 years, diagnosis of AR, monoallergy to HDMs, and written informed consent. AR diagnosis was established according to validated criteria, such as consistency between symptoms occurrence after exposure to dust and documented sensitization to HDMs. Exclusion criteria were: a different age, allergy to other allergens, a previous history of AIT, and severe psychiatric disorders. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of each participating allergy center (approval No. 2233). The study was managed, monitored, and analyzed by a Contract Research Organization (CD-Pharma Group, Milan, Italy) using electronic case report forms. Stallergenes Italia (Milan, Italy) sponsored the study. Nasal endoscopy and NC were performed as previously reported.4
Forty-six patients with AR to HDMs (24 females and 22 males; mean age 21 years, age range 6-56 years) were evaluated. NC assessment showed that 21 AR patients (45.7%) presented also NAR as represented in Figure A. In detail, 11 patients had NARESMA, 6 NARNE, 3 NARMA, and 1 NARES as reported in Figure B. The present finding is clinically relevant as it underlines the high prevalence of associated NAR in patients with HDM-AR (about 50%). The importance of this outcome has clinical impact as patients with NAR, mainly NARESMA, usually show more severe symptoms and resistance to antihistamines.5 On the other hand, AIT is usually prescribed, regardless of NAR evidence in clinical practice.67 At present, nasal comorbidity is not considered an obstacle to AIT prescription, even though this issue should be adequately considered in clinical practice. In this regard, AIT should be prescribed after a thorough assessment to define eligible candidates as previously discussed.7
In conclusion, the current findings derived from a real world multi-center study demonstrate that NAR may frequently be associated with AR, so from a pragmatic point of view NC should routinely be assessed in the workup of patients with AR to HDMs.

Figures and Tables

Figure

(A) Distribution expressed as percentage of patients with or without associated NAR. (B) Distribution expressed as percentage of patients with NARESMA (n=11), NARNE (n=6), NARMA (n=3), and NARES (n=1). NAR, nonallergic rhinitis; NARESMA, nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophils and mast cells; NARNE, nonallergic rhinitis with neutrophils; NARMA, nonallergic rhinitis with mast cells; NARES, nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophils.

aair-10-283-g001

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Italian Cometa Study Group: S. Barberi (Milano), B. Barbone (Sesto San Giovanni), A. Ferraro (Firenze), A. Foresi (Sesto San Giovanni), E. Galli (Roma), F. Gani (Orbassano), M. Gelardi (Bari), I. La Mantia (Acireale), D. Peroni (Pisa), E. Ridolo (Parma), G.E. Senna (Verona), L. Ricciardi (Messina), AM Riccio (Genova), A. Romano (Roma), O. Rossi (Firenze), G. Scala (Napoli), N. Quranta (Bari), S. Testi (Firenze).

Notes

There are no financial or other issues that might lead to conflict of interest.

References

1. Chen J, Zhou Y, Zhang L, Wang Y, Pepper AN, Cho SH, et al. Individualized treatment of allergic rhinitis according to nasal cytology. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2017; 9:403–409.
crossref
2. Calderón MA, Bousquet J, Canonica GW, Cardell LO, Fernandez de, Kleine-Tebbe J, et al. Guideline recommendations on the use of allergen immunotherapy in house dust mite allergy: time for a change. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017; 140:41–52.
crossref
3. Ciprandi G, Natoli V, Puccinelli P, Incorvaia C. Italian Cometa Study Group. Allergic rhinitis: the eligible candidate to mite immunotherapy in the real world. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2017; 13:11.
crossref
4. Gelardi M, Fiorella ML, Russo C, Fiorella R, Ciprandi G. Role of nasal cytology. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2010; 23:45–49.
5. Gelardi M, Maselli del, Fiorella ML, Fiorella R, Russo C, Soleti P, et al. Non-allergic rhinitis with eosinophils and mast cells constitutes a new severe nasal disorder. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2008; 21:325–331.
crossref
6. Calderon MA, Casale TB, Nelson HS, Demoly P. An evidence-based analysis of house dust mite allergen immunotherapy: a call for more rigorous clinical studies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013; 132:1322–1336.
7. Ciprandi G, Incorvaia C, Masieri S, Buttafava S, Frati F. The best allergen immunotherapy choice for mite allergic patients. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2016; 12:603–604.
crossref
TOOLS
ORCID iDs

Cristoforo Incorvaia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3965-7988

Giovanni Passalacqua
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5139-3604

Giorgio Ciprandi
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7016-8421

Similar articles