4.1 Article

Influence of allergy on the symptoms and treatment of nasal polyposis

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
Volume 126, Issue 8, Pages 839-844

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/00016480500504226

Keywords

allergic rhinitis; nasal polyposis; asthma; prednisolone; beclomethasone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conclusion. Allergy does not modify the symptoms of nasal polyposis, either initially or after a 1-year medical treatment. Objectives. To assess the role of allergy in the symptoms and treatment of patients presenting with the diagnosis of nasal polyposis. Patients and methods. Two simultaneous studies were carried out. In the first study, 180 consecutive patients with nasal polyposis (60% males, mean age = 48.4 years) were analyzed to detect whether the severity of their symptoms correlated with the presence of positive allergic tests. In the second study, 74 consecutive patients (57.5% males, mean age = 48.3 years) were analyzed to detect whether the results of a 1-year medical treatment of nasal polyposis were influenced by the presence of positive allergic tests (Phadiatop(R)). Five nasal criteria were scored: nasal obstruction, anterior and posterior rhinorrhea, facial pain, and the loss of sense of smell. The frequency of asthma was evaluated. Treatment of nasal polyposis consisted of washing of the nasal cavities, steroid spray, and oral steroid administration. The amount of steroid consumption (prednisolone and beclomethasone) was studied. Results. In the first study, mean scores of nasal symptoms did not differ between the two groups of patients with and without allergy. The prevalence of asthma (p = 0.03) was higher in the group with than without allergy. In the second study, decrease of all nasal symptoms was not statistically different in the two groups. Cumulative consumption of prednisolone and beclomethasone between baseline and year 1 were similar in the two groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available