You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 126 No. 6, June 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (7)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Immunology
 •Allergy
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Hot, Humid Air Partially Inhibits the Nasal Response to Allergen Provocation

Fuad M. Baroody, MD; Paraya Assanasen, MD; Ji Chung, BS; Robert M. Naclerio, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126:749-754.

Background  We have previously reported that preconditioning allergic subjects with hot, humid air (HHA) (temperature, 37°C; relative humidity >95%) in an environmental chamber resulted in partial inhibition of the early response to nasal allergen challenge.

Objective  To investigate whether this inhibitory effect could be achieved by inhalation of HHA via a face mask.

Design  Randomized, 4-way crossover study.

Subjects  Eighteen subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis participated in the study outside of their allergy season.

Interventions  Subjects underwent preconditioning with room air (RA) (temperature, 25°C; relative humidity <20%) or HHA either in a chamber or delivered via a face mask for 1 hour prior to and during nasal challenge with diluent for the allergen extract followed by 2 increasing doses of allergen.

Results  Net changes from diluent challenge for all parameters were compared between HHA and RA in each delivery method. Hot, humid air delivered by mask significantly inhibited the mean±SEM number of allergen-induced sneezes (HHA, 2.7±0.6; RA, 6.6±2.1; P=.03), congestion score (HHA, 2.3±0.5; RA, 3.4±0.5; P=.01), and secretion weights (HHA, 26.9±4.4 mg; RA, 38.6±5.0 mg; P=.048). However, HHA inhaled in a chamber significantly inhibited only the mean±SEM allergen-induced congestion (HHA, 1.2±0.4; RA, 3.6±0.6; P=.002) and pruritus (HHA, 0.7±0.3; RA, 2.3±0.5; P=.002) scores.

Conclusions  Preconditioning the nasal mucosa with HHA partially decreases the early response to nasal challenge with antigen irrespective of the administration technique. The secretory response, however, is only inhibited by localized delivery of HHA to the nose. The inhibitory effects of HHA are therefore probably related to local changes in the nasal mucosa and are not dependent on total body exposure to HHA.


From the Section of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Vasomotor Rhinitis Should Not Be a Wastebasket Diagnosis
Corey
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:588-589.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.