Background: To date, no predictive tests for the clinical response to allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASI) are available. Therefore an in vivo or in vitro test would be of great value. Objective: We sought to evaluate pretreatment parameters used in diagnosing allergic rhinitis and determining serum specific IgE (s-IgE) levels, serum total IgE (t-IgE) levels, and blood eosinophil counts and to identify whether can be used to predict clinical improvement in monosensitized patients with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma treated with immunotherapy. Methods: We analyzed 279 patients who had undergone 4 years of ASI administered either by means of the subcutaneous immunotherapy (76 patients) or sublingual immunotherapy (203 patients) routes. Serum t-IgE and s-IgE levels, blood eosinophil counts, and serum s-IgE/t-IgE ratios were calculated and tested for correlation with clinical response to ASI. Receiver operating characteristic curves were determined. Predicted probabilities and predictive areas under the curve were calculated. Results: The clinical response to ASI was effective in 145 (52.0%) of 279 total patients, 42 (55.2%) of 76 patients treated with subcutaneous immunotherapy, and 103 (50.7%) of 203 patients treated with sublingual immunotherapy. A significant correlation was found between the serum s-IgE/t-IgE ratio and the clinical response to ASI, with high ratios (>16.2) associated with an effective response. The sensitivity and specificity of the area under the curve of the ratio were higher than those of serum s-IgE and t-IgE alone. Conclusion: The calculation of the serum s-IgE/t-IgE ratio for predicting the clinical response to ASI offers an advantage over measuring t-IgE and s-IgE levels in monosensitized patients for the following allergens: grass, Parietaria judaica,
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a long history of use in foods as a flavor enhancer. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has classified MSG as generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate exists concerning whether MSG causes any of the alleged reactions. A complex of symptoms after ingestion of a Chinese meal was first described in 1968. MSG was suggested to trigger these symptoms, which were referred to collectively as Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. Numerous reports, most of them anecdotal, were published after the original observation. Since then, clinical studies have been performed by many groups, with varying degrees of rigor in experimental design ranging from uncontrolled open challenges to double-blind, placebo controlled (DBPC) studies. Challenges in subjects who reported adverse reactions to MSG have included relatively few subjects and have failed to show significant reactions to MSG. Results of surveys and of clinical challenges with MSG in the general population reveal no evidence of untoward effects. We recently conducted a multicenter DBPC challenge study in 130 subjects (the largest to date) to analyze the response of subjects who report symptoms from ingesting MSG. The results suggest that large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG. However, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent and were not reproducible. The responses were not observed when MSG was given with food.
ESS demonstrates a beneficial effect on the sinonasal and asthma symptomatology in patients with nasal polyps and asthma using objective measures. Subset of aspirin-tolerant patients have statistically better outcome for sinonasal symptoms and pulmonary function testing than aspirin-sensitive patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.