Cargando…

Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques

INTRODUCTION: Nasal provocation testing involves an allergen-specific local reaction of the nasal mucosa to the administered allergen. AIM: To determine the most objective nasal occlusion assessment technique that could be used in nasal provocation testing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 60 subjec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krzych-Fałta, Edyta, Furmańczyk, Konrad, Samoliński, Bolesław
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5183776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28035225
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pdia.2016.61339
_version_ 1782486114320252928
author Krzych-Fałta, Edyta
Furmańczyk, Konrad
Samoliński, Bolesław
author_facet Krzych-Fałta, Edyta
Furmańczyk, Konrad
Samoliński, Bolesław
author_sort Krzych-Fałta, Edyta
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Nasal provocation testing involves an allergen-specific local reaction of the nasal mucosa to the administered allergen. AIM: To determine the most objective nasal occlusion assessment technique that could be used in nasal provocation testing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 60 subjects, including 30 patients diagnosed with allergy to common environmental allergens and 30 healthy subjects were enrolled into the study. The method used in the study was a nasal provocation test with an allergen, with a standard dose of a control solution and an allergen (5,000 SBU/ml) administered using a calibrated atomizer into both nostrils at room temperature. Early-phase nasal mucosa response in the early phase of the allergic reaction was assessed via acoustic rhinometry, optical rhinometry, nitric oxide in nasal air, and tryptase levels in the nasal lavage fluid. RESULTS: In estimating the homogeneity of the average values, the Levene’s test was used and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted for all the methods used for assessing the nasal provocation test with an allergen. Statistically significant results were defined for p < 0.05. Of all the objective assessment techniques, the most sensitive and characteristic ones were the optical rhinometry techniques (specificity = 1, sensitivity = 1, AUC = 1, PPV = 1, NPV = 1). CONCLUSIONS: The techniques used showed significant differences between the group of patients with allergic rhinitis and the control group. Of all the objective assessment techniques, those most sensitive and characteristic were the optical rhinometry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5183776
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51837762016-12-29 Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques Krzych-Fałta, Edyta Furmańczyk, Konrad Samoliński, Bolesław Postepy Dermatol Alergol Original Paper INTRODUCTION: Nasal provocation testing involves an allergen-specific local reaction of the nasal mucosa to the administered allergen. AIM: To determine the most objective nasal occlusion assessment technique that could be used in nasal provocation testing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 60 subjects, including 30 patients diagnosed with allergy to common environmental allergens and 30 healthy subjects were enrolled into the study. The method used in the study was a nasal provocation test with an allergen, with a standard dose of a control solution and an allergen (5,000 SBU/ml) administered using a calibrated atomizer into both nostrils at room temperature. Early-phase nasal mucosa response in the early phase of the allergic reaction was assessed via acoustic rhinometry, optical rhinometry, nitric oxide in nasal air, and tryptase levels in the nasal lavage fluid. RESULTS: In estimating the homogeneity of the average values, the Levene’s test was used and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted for all the methods used for assessing the nasal provocation test with an allergen. Statistically significant results were defined for p < 0.05. Of all the objective assessment techniques, the most sensitive and characteristic ones were the optical rhinometry techniques (specificity = 1, sensitivity = 1, AUC = 1, PPV = 1, NPV = 1). CONCLUSIONS: The techniques used showed significant differences between the group of patients with allergic rhinitis and the control group. Of all the objective assessment techniques, those most sensitive and characteristic were the optical rhinometry. Termedia Publishing House 2016-12-02 2016-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5183776/ /pubmed/28035225 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pdia.2016.61339 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Termedia Sp. z o.o. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Krzych-Fałta, Edyta
Furmańczyk, Konrad
Samoliński, Bolesław
Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques
title Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques
title_full Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques
title_fullStr Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques
title_full_unstemmed Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques
title_short Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques
title_sort specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5183776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28035225
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pdia.2016.61339
work_keys_str_mv AT krzychfałtaedyta specificityandsensitivityassessmentofselectednasalprovocationtestingtechniques
AT furmanczykkonrad specificityandsensitivityassessmentofselectednasalprovocationtestingtechniques
AT samolinskibolesław specificityandsensitivityassessmentofselectednasalprovocationtestingtechniques