1,720,992 research outputs found

    DETERMINANTS OF BRONCHIAL HYPERRESPONSIVENESS IN SUBJECTS WITH RHINITIS

    No full text
    Subjects with rhinitis but without asthma may have coexisting bronchial hyperresponsiveness, although the reasons for this are uncertain. To evaluate the factors that determine BHR in rhinitis we examined 410 patients with symptomatic rhinitis with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC)>or=80% of the predicted value. In all subjects a skin prick test (SPT) was performed, a determination of total serum IgE and an eosinophils count in the blood. Of the 410 subjects we found that 161 (39.3%) exhibited a methacholine PD20 of 800 mg or less (Group A), whereas 249 (60.7%) had a methacholine PD20 more of 800 mg (Group B). Despite the matched mean values for FEV1 and FVC, compared with Group B, Group A had a lower predicted forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75%(FEF25%-75%) (86.7 +/- 12.0 vs. 93.7 +/- 7.3, P < 0.0001). A great portion of the subjects of the Group Ain respect to subjects of the Group B were exposed to passive smoke (37.8% vs. 22.0%, P = 0.0008), reported having mothers with asthma (34.1% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.0001), presented a positive skin prick test (93.7% vs. 67.0%, P < 0.0001), had higher levels of total serum IgE (geometric mean of Log10 2.46 +/- 0.27 kU/L vs. 2.06 +/- 0.38 kU/L, P < 0.0001) and higher blood eosinophil counts (geometric mean of Log10 2.67 +/- 0.07 x 10(-3) mL vs. 2.57 +/- 0.09 x 10(-3) mL, P < 0.0001), and reported increased nasal obstruction (2.0 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.2) vs. 0.6 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.7), P < 0.0001). Logistic regression demonstrates that nasal obstruction (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.80) and the presence of positive SPT (OR 6.15, 95% CI 2.42 to 15.61) were the most available predictors to discriminate between subjects with BHR and subjects without BHR. In addition, BHR was positively related to blood eosinophil counts (OR= 2.80, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.07), FEF25%-75% values (OR= 2.72, 95% CI 1.23 to 5.99) and familiarity (mother) for asthma (OR = 2.45, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.46). Whereas passive smoke and total serum IgE were not positively related to BHR. Increased nasal obstruction and the presence of positive SPT were the most available predictors to discriminate between subjects with and without BHR. Finally, BHR was positively related to blood eosinophil counts, FEF25%-75% values and to familiarity (mother) for asthma

    Leukotriene receptor antagonists in monotherapy or in combination with antihistamines in the treatment of chronic urticaria: a systematic review.

    No full text
    In vitro and in vivo clinical and experimental data have suggested that leukotrienes play a key role in inflammatory reactions of the skin. Antileukotriene drugs, ie, leukotriene receptor antagonists and synthesis inhibitors, are a class of anti-inflammatory drugs that have shown clinical efficacy in the management of asthma and in rhinitis with asthma. We searched MEDLINE database and carried out a manual search on journals specializing in allergy and dermatology for the use of antileukotriene drugs in urticaria. Montelukast might be effective in chronic urticaria associated with aspirin (ASA) or food additive hypersensitivity or with autoreactivity to intradermal serum injection (ASST) when taken with an antihistamine but not in mild or moderate chronic idiopathic urticaria [urticaria without any possible secondary causes (ie, food additive or ASA and other NSAID hypersensitivity, or ASST)]. Evidence for the effectiveness of zafirlukast and the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor, zileuton, in chronic urticaria is mainly anecdotal. In addition, there is anecdotal evidence of effectiveness of antileukotrienes in primary cold urticaria, delayed pressure urticaria and dermographism. No evidence exists for other physical urticarias, including cholinergic, solar and aquagenic urticarias, vibratory angioedema, and exercise-induced anaphylaxis

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore