Background
Sensitization to airborne molds may be a risk factor for severe asthma and direct cause of asthma exacerbation (AE).
Methods
A prospective, 1-year (April 2016–March 2017) study, done in Kuwait Allergy Centre, investigated the link between AEs with exposure to outdoor molds and the role of meteorological parameters in mold sensitized patients and compared with non-allergic asthma patients who had asthma deterioration. The total of 676 adult asthmatics with moderate-severe AEs were included and divided into atopic (85.65%) and non-atopic group. Atopy was defined by positive skin prick test (SPT) to at least one inhalant allergen. Data regarding atopy and asthma severity were collected from patient’s records. Patients with symptoms and signs of acute respiratory infection and patient sensitized to indoor allergens only were excluded. Daily count of local pollens (Salsola kali, Bermuda grass) and molds (Aspergillus, Alternaria and Cladosporium) were obtained from the Aerobiology department. Daily metrological parameters (atmospheric pressure-AP, temperature-T and relative humidity-RH) were provided by Kuwait Environment Public Authority. Count of spores/m
3
and weather variable are shown on weekly basis. The year circle was divided into 4 Seasons (1, 2, 3, 4) accordingly to typical desert climate.
Results
Sensitization to molds was relatively high but significantly less (25.0%) if compared to the pollens sensitization. The highest number of AEs was in season 4 for both molds and pollens sensitized patients. Seasonal patterns for both allergens were significant and positively correlated with RH and AP. In season 1 only, mold sensitized patients showed higher rate of AEs. Non-atopic patients have been less sensitive to increased RH than atopic. Negative correlation with T was similar in both atopic and non-atopic patients.
Conclusion
Despite of high rate of sensitization to molds, their significant role in triggering AE was not found in desert environment. Typical desert climate and high allergencity of local weeds outweigh the influence of the molds.
Sensitization to cat allergens is common worldwide. Currently, there is a trend towards costly and often unavailable diagnostic analysis. The aim is to assess the reliability of skin prick test (SPT) and serum specific IgE (ssIgE) to cat sensitization, by performing nasal challenge test (NCT) in a community with low cat ownership but common presence of stray cats. Forty-one pa-tients with perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) who were mono or polysensitized (including cat) were included. We had 31 cat non-owners and 10 present cat owners. SPT (> 5 mm / diameter), ssIgE (≥ 0.70 IU/ml), nasal smear for eosinophil (Eo) and NCT were compared between groups. Outcomes included nasal challenge score, nasal Eo positivity, peak inspiratory and expiratory flow (PIF and PEF) 2 and 8 hours after the NCT, and were compared to baseline. Baseline SPT wheal size and ssIgE level were similar in both groups. NCT positivity was more frequent in cat owners. The strongest nasal reaction was on the top concentration in both groups. Nasal Eo positivity in cat owners was higher before and 2 hours after NCT, but similar to non-owners at last measurement. NCT positive cat non-owners had bigger SPT wheal size than NCT negative non-owners, but smaller than NCT positive cat owners. In contrast to PEF, a significant fall in PIF was noticed in both groups. Mono and polysensitised patients showed similar NCT positivity. Stray cats may pose a relevant risk of developing perennial AR. Regardless of cat ownership status, SPT and ssIgE should be the first diagnostic tool. Nasal Eo and NCT seem to be good diagnostic tools in cat non-owners if diagnosis is elusive.
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.