Testing hypothesis about incidence of information-significant symptoms in patients with chronic allergic, chronic vasomotor and chronic mixed rhinitis

A mathematical model of the neural network has been used to classify sick women with diagnosed allergic and vasomotor rhinitis in three forms: allergic rhinitis (ARhinitis), vasomotor rhinitis (VRhinitis) and mixed rhinitis (MRhinitis). When checking the incidence, the information-significant symptoms that we identified in the categories «Complaints» and “Objective status”, it was found that these symptoms are present in all forms of rhinitis and many of them are indistinguishable by the frequency of occurrence. These three forms of rhinitis with a triad of symptoms can be interpreted as an allergic disease of the nasal mucosa. Mixed rhinitis for the majority of information-significant symptoms in these two categories should be attributed to local allergic rhinitis (LAR). The full manifestation of information-significant symptoms in some patients depends on the duration of the disease and the individual characteristics of the body, which affects the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis and local allergic rhinitis. The term “Vasomotor rhinitis” should be excluded and interpreted as allergic rhinitis. We have convincingly proved that vasomotor rhinitis is a synonym for allergic rhinitis and is treated according to the standard of allergic pathology of the body. At present it is necessary to distinguish two forms of allergic rhinitis: allergic rhinitis, and local allergic rhinitis, depending on the identified information-significant symptoms in the patient at the time of the visit to the doctor.

Rhinitis: differential diagnosis and treatment principles

Rhinitis is inflammation of the mucous membrane inside the nose. The clinical symptoms of this disease include nasal congestion, sneezing, itching of the nose and roof of mouth, rhinorrhea, and mucus draining down the back of the throat. Both allergic and non-allergic factors can play a role in the development of rhinitis. The most commonly used classification of rhinitis includes allergic rhinitis, non-allergic rhinitis, infectious rhinitis, and its specific forms. Allergic rhinitis is classified into the intermittent or persistent types, and may also be classified as mild, moderate and severe according to the severity of symptoms. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes elimination of contact with allergen, allergen-specific immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy, which is selected depending on the severity of the symptoms. Infectious rhinitis develops in acute viral infection, and rhinitis symptoms are present in acute and chronic rhinosinusitis. Non-allergic rhinitis comprises conditions ranging from vasomotor rhinitis and gustatory rhinitis to non-allergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome. Mixed rhinitis has components of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis. In addition, there are CPAP rhinitis, occupational rhinitis, medication rhinitis, rhinitis in systemic administration of drugs, rhinitis of pregnant women, atrophic rhinitis, rhinitis in systemic diseases. The type of rhinitis is diagnosed based on the patient’s complaints, anamnesis and clinical picture, some cases require laboratory tests and CT scan of the paranasal sinuses to differentiate the diagnosis. Approaches to the treatment of rhinitis depend on its type and include elimination of allergens or provoking factors, administration of saline solutions, intranasal glucocorticosteroids, systemic antihistamines, intranasal cromones, decongestants, antibacterial drugs may be prescribed to treat infectious rhinitis. Rhinitis should be differentiated from structural abnormalities, including congenital features, acquired conditions, neoplasms, gastroesophageal reflux, nasal liquorrhea.

Allergic and Mixed Rhinitis: Diagnosis and Natural Evolution

Chronic rhinitis (CR) is divided into two main categories: allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). These conditions are more recognizable to an experienced clinician, as they can be more clearly demarcated diagnostically. However, an additional 30% to 50% of patients with CR might have an overlap of NAR and AR, referred to as mixed rhinitis (MR). Progress in elucidating the pathophysiologic mechanisms behind MR and NAR has been made in the past several years, and there are now several guidelines published to assist the clinician in accurately diagnosing AR, NAR, and MR. Clinical history and subjective symptoms can provide clues for differentiating AR from MR and NAR, but allergy testing is recommended to confirm these conditions. Progress in accurately diagnosing patients with CR will be made as studies incorporate subjective (i.e., validated questionnaires such as the irritant index questionnaire (IIQ), medication responsiveness, and quality-of-life tools) and objective (i.e., nasal cytologic testing, nasal provocation, and biomarkers) methods characterizing rhinitis subtypes.

Cryotherapy for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Background Chronic rhinitis impacts 60 million Americans and is associated with significant costs for patients. Although medical treatments are first line, some patients require surgical intervention such as vidian or posterial nasal neurectomy. Previous reviews have investigated the role of surgical management in chronic rhinitis, but none have investigated a longstanding treatment with recent interest: cryotherapy. Objective To identify the safety, efficacy, and durability of treatment response of cryotherapy in treating chronic rhinitis. Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies that investigated the utility of cryotherapy in chronic rhinitis. Only studies with the primary objective of assessing the efficacy of cryotherapy on chronic rhinitis were included. Patients were classified as allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis (vasomotor rhinitis), or mixed rhinitis using the original author’s criteria. Data were extracted regarding reported complications, treatment efficacy, and length of follow-up. Results A total of 110 abstracts were identified, of which 15 were included in this review. Epistaxis and nasal obstruction were commonly reported complications. No serious adverse events were reported. For obstructive symptoms, “reduced” symptoms were reported in 63.4% to 100% of patients. In regard to rhinorrhea, reports of reduced symptoms were experienced from 77% to 100% of patients. Seven studies used only patient-reported improvements without stratifying results based on symptom type; general improvements ranged from 67% to 100%. Nine studies noted symptom improvement in nonallergic cohorts ranging from 67% to 97.5% of patients. Four studies noted improvement in allergic cohorts ranging from 63.4% to 80% of patients. Two studies noted improvement in patients with mixed pictures ranging from 92.5% to 100%. Conclusions Although cryotherapy appears safe and efficacious, heterogeneous past investigations with low-quality evidence make strong, evidence-based recommendations difficult to make. Further study with validated metrics and controlled populations is certainly warranted and should be encouraged.

Chronic rhinitis and its association with headache frequency and disability in persons with migraine: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

Background Rhinitis is a comorbidity of migraine, but its relationship to migraine headache frequency and headache-related disability is unknown. Objectives To determine if rhinitis and its subtypes are associated with an increased frequency and associated disability of migraine. Methods The AMPP Study is a longitudinal study of individuals with “severe” headache from the US population. Respondents meeting ICHD-2 criteria for migraine in 2008 were identified and the presence of rhinitis was determined using the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS). Those with rhinitis were subtyped as allergic, non-allergic, mixed and unclassified based on a rhinitis questionnaire. The primary outcome measures were categories of headache-day frequency and headache-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). Logistic regression for ordered categories was used for modeling each outcome separately, adjusted for sociodemographics profile, headache features, headache treatments and comorbidities. Results The AMPP Study questionnaire was mailed to 17,892 persons and returned by 60.1% of respondents. Among the migraine sample ( n = 5849), 66.8% had rhinitis with mixed rhinitis as the most common form. The presence of rhinitis of any type was associated with headache frequency after adjusting for sociodemographic variables only (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.16, 1.53) and in the fully adjusted model (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.05–1.49). Headache-related disability (MIDAS category) was associated with rhinitis after adjusting for sociodemographic features (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17–1.46), but lost significance in the fully adjusted model (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.96–1.26). Mixed rhinitis was associated with an increased headache frequency category in the model adjusted for sociodemographics (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.24–1.70) and in that adjusted for all covariates (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.05–1.57). The odds ratio for MIDAS categories were similarly increased in both models for the mixed rhinitis group. Conclusions The frequency and disability of migraine are higher in persons with rhinitis, particularly those with mixed rhinitis. These results, however, should be considered preliminary until confirmed in future studies because of the modest questionnaire response rate in this study.