4.4 Article

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: elevated serum immunoglobulin E is associated with Staphylococcus aureus on culture

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.20079

关键词

superantigen; staphylococcus aureus; chronic rhinosinusitis; nasal polyps; immunoglobulin E; eosinophil; T-helper-2; sinus bacteria

资金

  1. Entrigue (San Antonio, TX)
  2. Intersect ENT (Palo Alto, CA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent data has implicated Staphylococcus aureus (SA) superantigen as a potential disease modifier in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The objective of this work was to compare total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and serum eosinophils in patients with CRSwNP and CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) based on culture results of the 3 most commonly isolated bacteria. Methods: Retrospective review at a tertiary rhinology referral center of patients with CRS over a 4-year period. Results: Bacterial cultures and immunologic data were obtained from 62 patients with CRSwNP and 34 patients with CRSsNP. SA was the most prevalent bacteria in the CRSwNP group, isolated in 19 patients (31%). Patients with elevated total serum IgE (> 114 IU/mL) were more likely to have SA on culture (p = 0.04) in this population. The percent serum eosinophil levels in the SA + group compared with the SA-group was not significant (6.0 vs 5.1, p = 0.17). Lund-Mackay computed tomography (CT) scores, but not Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 20 (SNOT-20) scores were significantly higher in the SA + vs SA-group (p = 0.03) in patients with CRSwNP. The CRSsNP group demonstrated no difference in IgE or serum eosinophils between different bacterial groups. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that there is an association between SA sinonasal presence and elevated total serum IgE in patients with CRSwNP. In addition, SA + patients had higher Lund-Mackay CT scores, indicating a higher objective burden of disease in this group of patients. (C) 2011 ARS-AAOA, LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据