4.4 Article

An immunologic test for chronic rhinosinusitis based on free intranasal eosinophilic major basic protein

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21421

关键词

rhinosinusitis; allergic rhinitis; major basic protein; ELISA; intranasal protein; eosinophil degranulation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease) [R01 AI49235]
  2. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  3. Gromo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundA histologic hallmark of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an eosinophilic inflammation, present with and without nasal polyposis and independent of atopy. Eosinophils migrate through nasal tissue including the epithelium into the nasal airway mucus, where they form clusters and degranulate, releasing granule proteins including the toxic major basic protein (MBP). Specific biomarkers for CRS, which could be used as a diagnostic test for CRS with a high sensitivity and specificity, are presently lacking. Recently, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based test for MBP in nasal airway mucus received regulatory approval. MethodsA new assay was specifically developed to detect released MBP in airway mucus. MBP levels in nasal mucus of 85 randomly selected CRS patients diagnosed by endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) scans and symptoms were compared to 13 healthy controls and 5 disease controls (allergic rhinitis). ResultsOverall, 92% (78/85) of CRS patients' mucus were positive for MBP (mean 7722 ng/mL) vs none of 13 healthy controls and none of 5 allergic rhinitis patients (<7.8 ng/mL; p < 0.000000000002). In this study, the MBP ELISA had a 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity for CRS. ConclusionFree MBP in nasal mucus can be used as a biomarker to diagnose CRS. The MBP ELISA represents the first immunologically-based test to potentially distinguish CRS from the eosinophilic inflammation in allergic rhinitis. (C) 2014 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