Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4534_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
27 Мб
Скачать
17 Allergen Testing: Purpose, Procedure, Interpretation
Table 17.5 Recommendations for evaluating NAC as positive [55] (taken from EAACI Position paper on the standardization of nasal allergen challenges)
Method
Subjective measures
Visual analog scale (VAS) Lebel score Linder score Total symptom nasal score
(TNSS)
Objective measures
Peak nasal inspiratory ow (PNIF)
Acoustic rhinometry (AcRh)
Active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR)
4-phase-rhinomanometry (4PR)
Clearly positive
Symptoms 55mm Symptoms 23mm Increase of 5 points Increase of 3 points Increase of 5 points Increase of 3 points Increase of 5 points Increase of 3 points
Flow decrease of 40% Flow decrease of 20%
CSA-2 decrease of 40%
Flow decrease of 40% at 150Pa
40% increase in logarithmic(lg) effective resistance
Moderately positive
Decrease in sum of 2–6cm327% bilaterally
Flow decrease in 20% at 150Pa
20% increase in lg effective resistance
229
penetration into the lower respiratory tract via the nasopharynx. NAC response is assessed with subjective evaluation through symptom ratings and an objective eval­uation of nasal patency which is using the peak nasal inspiratory ow (PNIF), an acoustic rhinometer, an anterior rhinomanometry, or a 4-phase rhinomanometry. The increase of 30% for Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) or visual analog scale (VAS) is frequently accepted as positive in subjective assessments. Objective NAC results are dened as positive when 40% decrease of ow is detected [55]. Evaluations of the NAC results are shown in Table17.5 [55]. Although it has never been documented, a nasal allergen challenge can cause an anaphylactic reaction.
Allergen Exposure Chambers (AECs) are provocation tests with stable and reproducible priorities under standardized environmental circumstances. At 1987, Vienna Challenge Chamber was the rst dened and Der P-1 and Grass antigens were used. In addition to Der P-1 and Grass antigens Ragweed and Japanese cedar pollen antigens were utilized with different devices over time. AECs offer the unique advantage of simulating real-world allergen exposures, testing the response of the entire patient rather than focusing solely on a specic target organ. This com­prehensive approach includes exposure to both the upper and lower airways, along with the conjunctival mucosa. A correlation between the symptoms during AEC and at natural seasonal exposure was shown in a study [56]. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) underscores that AECs may be used in clinical assessment of aller­gic rhinitis however EMA (European Medicines Agency) determined the necessity of validation [57, 58].
Bronchial Provocation Tests (BPT): Abnormal bronchoconstrictor response of the airways due to specic or nonspecic stimuli is considered to be a character­istic pathophysiological feature of asthma. Detecting airway inammation and air­way hyperresponsiveness is important of asthma diagnose. BPT can provide signicant information that could not be detected by noninvasive indicators of
230
C. Özdemiral and Ü. M. Şahiner
airway inammation. BPT becomes particularly important when other diagnostic measures, such as spirometry or assessing bronchodilator response, yield inconclu­sive results. It’s especially useful in identifying triggers related to exposure to envi­ronmental or occupational allergens. Moreover, BPT may play a signicant role in assessing the efcacy of current asthma therapy. To evaluate airway responsiveness in patients BPT could be performed directly or indirectly methods. Direct BPT involves substances like methacholine or histamine that directly act on specic receptors on the bronchial smooth muscle cells. When these substances come into contact with these receptors, they trigger the contraction of the smooth muscles, leading to airway narrowing. Methacholine is a synthetic derivative of the neu­rotransmitter acetylcholine. Since histamine is linked to greater systemic adverse effects, such as headache, ushing, and hoarseness, methacholine is more fre­quently utilized. Indirect BPT, on the other hand, involves substances or stimuli like hypertonic saline, mannitol, adenosine monophosphate, cold air, or exercise. These agents trigger the release of various mediators within the airways, causing inammation and, subsequently, airway constriction. Indirect methods are bene­cial in assessing the overall response of the airways, involving not just smooth muscle cells but also various mediators, receptors, and cells within the airway walls. Thus, indirect BPT is considered to be more specic for asthma. Methacholine is available as dry crystalline powder (Provocoline®) has 100mg vial. Methacholine solution is prepared with normal saline (0.9% sodium chloride) as the diluent of choice. The ve-breath method and a dosage regimen employing methacholine concentrations of 0.0625, 0.25, 1, 4 and 16mg/mL have been recommended by the American Thoracic Society [59]. Baseline spirometry is performed (FEV1 (forced expiratory ow in 1s) >70%) then 2mL of the rst diluted solution is given with nebulizer which has a dosimeter to patient. The patient inhales ve time from the nebulizer. The FEV1 at about 30 and 90s after the fth inhalation is measured. If the FEV1 decline is less than 20%, challenge test is continued subsequent concen­tration. If the FEV1 falls more than 20% from baseline or the highest concentration has been given methacholine challenge test is nished and considered to be posi­tive. If the FEV1 does not decrease by at least 20% after the maximum dose (i.e., 16 mg/mL), the PC20 (provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1) should be documented as “>16mg/mL”. If PC20 is greater than 16mg/mL, it is highly probable that the patient does not currently have asthma. However metha­choline challenge testing has a higher negative predictive power than positive pre­dictive power, it is more benecial in eliminating an asthma diagnosis than in establishing one [59, 60].
In patients with asthma who have a history of experiencing dyspnea during or after exertion, exercise challenge test can be used to diagnose exercise induced bronchoconstriction. The motor-driven treadmill with adjustable speed and grade or the electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer are the preferred forms of exer­cise to challenge test. The exercise duration is typically 6min for children under the age of 12 and 8min for older children and adults. Both speed and grade begin
17 Allergen Testing: Purpose, Procedure, Interpretation
at a low level and increase in difculty until the heart rate (estimated as 220-age in years) reaches 80–90% of the predicted maximum. Exercise intensity may be measured by measuring ventilation rather than heart rate. Ventilation should reach 40–60% of the predicted maximum voluntary ventilation (estimated as FEV1x35). When the patient has exercised for at least 4min at the target heart rate or breath­ing, the test is completed. Patients can terminate the test any time. Spirometry is used before and after exercise. After nishing exertion, spirometry should be per­formed 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30min later. 10% of a decline is regarded as abnormal however more than 15% decline as more diagnostic for exercise induced broncho­constriction [59].
231
17.2.7 Nasal sIgE
Nasal sIgE measurement has high specicity however low sensitivity for diagnosis of local allergic rhinitis. However the sensitivity, specicity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for local sIgE as a diag­nostic tool for the diagnosis of local allergic rhinitis is founded in a small patient group 91%, 78%, 98%, 94%, respectively [61]. Although several samples (secre­tions, scraping, brushing, tissue homogenates, etc.) have been used to assess nasal sIgE, none of them have been validated [62].
17.2.8 Nasal Smear Eosinophilia
Eosinophils are recruited from blood to nasal mucosa due to Type 2 immunity and cytokines. More than 10% eosinophils are detected at nasal smear is fre­quently accepted as nasal eosinophilia. Nasal eosinophilia may seen in patients with AR, Nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome, and Chronic rhinosi­nusitis with nasal polyposis. A correlation is known between AR symptoms and nasal smear eosinophil counts [63].
17.2.9 Eosinophilic Cationic Protein (ECP)
The levels of the ECP in tissue and peripheral blood strongly linked with the amount of eosinophils. ECP may increase in allergic diseases including asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis, also infections, and Hypereosinophilic syndrome. Elevated ECP may be detected at serum, sputum, nasal lavage, bronchoalveolar uid, and skin. ECP and airway inammation have a favorable correlation, but not with airway hyperresponsiveness. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated to be use­ful in determining the severity of asthma, compliance with anti-inammatory asthma therapy, and as a guide for reducing inhaled corticosteroid dosage [64].
232
C. Özdemiral and Ü. M. Şahiner
17.3 Future Perspectives andConclusion
The rising prevalence of allergies worldwide has indeed necessitated the develop­ment of more precise and specic diagnostic tests. In addition to the tests that have been performed safely and results are reliable for decades to diagnose or rule out allergy, there is still need for tests provide more specic and precise results. There is lack of evaluation and validation for sIgE cut off thresholds for inhalant allergens to predict clinical reactivity. RD promises hope to clinicians and patients for unre­solved allergic circumstances and ndings can signicantly contribute to individu­alized approach to the patient, however time consuming and interpretation the results depends on specic training are among difculties. Increased validation and standardization of the laboratories for BAT may reduce the necessity for invivo procedures such intradermal testing and allergen challenges. Affording required standardized conditions make using AEC difcult, however it may provide results similar to the exposure in real life due to provoke with whole body.
In summary, while advancements in allergy testing offer promising prospects for more accurate diagnoses and personalized treatment approaches, challenges like standardization, interpretation, and practical application hinder their widespread adoption and effectiveness. Nonetheless, ongoing research and improvements aim to address these limitations for better management of allergic conditions in the future.

References

1. Dreborg S, Frew A. Position paper: allergen standardization and skin tests. Allergy.
1993;48(s14):49–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1993.tb04756.x.
2. Blackley CH.Experimental researches on the causes and nature of Catarrhus aestivus (Hay
fever or Hay-asthma), vol. 133. London, England: Balliere Tindall Cox; 1873. p. 181.
3. Indrajana T, Spieksma FTM, Voorhorst R.Comparative study of the intracutaneous, scratch
and prick tests in allergy. Ann Allergy. 1997;29:639–50.
4. Ebruster H.The prick test, a recent cutaneous test for the diagnosis of allergic disorders. Wien
Klin Wochenschr. 1959;71:551–4.
5. Pepys J.Skin testing. Br J Hosp Med. 1975;14:412–7.
6. Demoly P, Michel F, Bousquet J.In vivo methods for study of allergy. Skin tests, techniques
and interpretation. In: Middleton E, Reed C, Ellis E, Adkinson N, Yunginger J, Busse W, edi­tors. Allergy, principles and practice. 5th ed. Mosby Co: St Louis, MO; 1998. p. 530–9.
7. Heinzerling L, Mari A, Bergmann KC, et al. The skin prick test—European standards. Clin
Transl Allergy. 2013;3:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-7022-3-3.
8. Heinzerling LM, Burbach GJ, Edenharter G, et al. GA2LEN skin test study I: GA2LEN har-
monization of skin prick testing: novel sensitization patterns for inhalant allergens in Europe. Allergy. 2009;64(10):1498–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02093.x.
9. Popov TA, Passalacqua G, González-Díaz SN, et al. Medical devices in allergy practice.
World Allergy Organ J. 2020;13(10):100466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100466.
10. Şahiner UM, Civelek E, Yavuz ST, Büyüktiryaki AB, Tuncer A, Şekerel BE.Skin prick testing
to aeroallergen extracts: what is the optimal panel in children and adolescents in Turkey? Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2012;157(4):391–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329870.
17 Allergen Testing: Purpose, Procedure, Interpretation
11. Newson RB, van Ree R, Forsberg B, et al. Geographical variation in the prevalence of sensiti-
zation to common aeroallergens in adults: the GA2LEN survey. Allergy. 2014;69(5):643–51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/all.12397.
12. Bernstein IL, Li JT, Bernstein DI, et al. Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice param-
eter. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;100(3 Suppl 3):S1–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1081-1206(10)60305-5.
13. Buyuktiryaki B, Sahiner UM, Karabulut E, Cavkaytar O, Tuncer A, Sekerel BE.Optimizing
the use of a skin prick test device on children. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;162(1):65–70.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000350788.
14. Skin tests used in type I allergy testing position paper. Sub-committee on skin tests of the
European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology. Allergy. 1989;44(s10):11–59.
15. Oppenheimer J, Nelson HS. Skin testing. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;96(2 Suppl
1):S6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1081-1206(10)60895-2.
16. Bousquet PJ, Chatzi L, Jarvis D, Burney P.Original article: assessing skin prick tests reliability
in ECRHS-I.Allergy. 2008;63(3):341–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01581.x.
17. Nevis IF, Binkley K, Kabali C.Diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick testing for allergic rhinitis:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2016;12(1):20. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s13223-016-0126-0.
18. Bousquet J, Heinzerling L, Bachert C, et al. Practical guide to skin prick tests in allergy to
aeroallergens. Allergy. 2012;67(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02728.x.
19. Rondón C, Romero JJ, López S, et al. Local IgE production and positive nasal provocation test
in patients with persistent nonallergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119(4):899–905.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.01.006.
20. Leonardi A, Fregona IA, Gismondi M, Daniotti E, Carniel G, Secchi AG.Correlation between
conjunctival provocation test (CPT) and systemic allergometric tests in allergic conjunctivitis. Eye (Lond). 1990;4(Pt 5):760–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1990.109.
21. Chiriac AM, Bousquet J, Demoly P. 70—In vivo methods for the study and diagnosis of
allergy. In: Adkinson NF, Bochner BS, Burks AW, et al., editors. Middleton’s allergy. 8th ed. W.B.Saunders; 2014. p. 1119–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-08593-9.00071-1.
22. Wise SK, Lin SY, Toskala E, et al. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinol-
ogy: allergic rhinitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018;8(2):108–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/
alr.22073.
23. Cox L, Williams B, Sicherer S, et al. Pearls and pitfalls of allergy diagnostic testing: report
from the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American Academy of allergy, asthma and immunology specic IgE test task force. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(6):580–92.
24. Gendo K, Larson EB. Evidence-based diagnostic strategies for evaluat-
ing suspected allergic rhinitis. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(4):278–89. https://doi.
org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-4-200402170-00010.
25. Schwindt CD, Hutcheson PS, Leu SY, Dykewicz MS.Role of intradermal skin tests in the
evaluation of clinically relevant respiratory allergy assessed using patient history and nasal challenges. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005;94(6):627–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1081-1206(10)61319-1.
26. Lockey R, Benedict L, Turkeltaub P, Bukantz S. Fatalities from immunotherapy (IT) and
skin testing (ST). J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1987;79(4):660–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0091-6749(87)80164-1.
27. Jadassohn J. Zur Kenntnis der medikamentoessen Dermatosen. In: Jarisch A, Neisser A,
editors. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft, V Kongress. Berlin: Julius Springer; 1895. p. 103–29.
28. Fuiano N, Incorvaia C.Utility of the atopy patch test in the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Iran
J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;28(86):169–75.
29. Lachapelle JM, Bruze M, Elsner PU, editors. Patch testing tips: recommendations from the
ICDRG.Springer; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45395-3.
233
234
30. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm
Venereol. 1970;50(4):287–92. https://doi.org/10.2340/0001555550287292.
31. Garg V, Brod B, Gaspari AA.Patch testing: uses, systems, risks/benets, and its role in man-
aging the patient with contact dermatitis. Clin Dermatol. 2021;39(4):580–90. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2021.03.005.
32. Kjellman NM, Johansson SG, Roth A. Serum IgE levels in healthy children quanti-
ed by a sandwich technique (PRIST). Clin Allergy. 1976;6(1):51–9. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2222.1976.tb01411.x.
33. Emanuel IA.In vitro testing for allergy diagnosis. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2003;36(5):879–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-6665(03)00051-3.
34. Lee JH, Park KH, Kim HS, et al. Specic IgE measurement using AdvanSure® system: com-
parison of detection performance with ImmunoCAP® system in Korean allergy patients. Clin Chim Acta. 2012;413(9–10):914–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.02.018.
35. Nolte H, DuBuske LM.Performance characteristics of a new automated enzyme immuno-
assay for the measurement of allergen-specic IgE.Summary of the probability outcomes comparing results of allergen skin testing to results obtained with the HYTEC system and CAP system. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997;79(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1081-1206(10)63080-3.
36. Bao Y, Chen J, Cheng L, et al. Chinese guideline on allergen immunotherapy for allergic
rhinitis. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:4607–50. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.10.112.
37. Robinson M, Smart J. Allergy testing and referral in children. Aust Fam Physician.
2008;37:210–3.
38. de Vos G.Skin testing versus serum-specic IgE testing: which is better for diagnosing aeroal-
lergen sensitization and predicting clinical allergy? Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2014;14(5):430.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-014-0430-z.
39. Valenta L, Niederberger H, Kraft G. The recombinant allergen-based concept of com-
ponent-resolved diagnostics and immunotherapy (CRD and CRIT). Clin Exp Allergy. 1999;29(7):896–904. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2222.1999.00653.x.
40. Bousquet PJ, Castelli C, Daures JP, et al. Assessment of allergen sensitization in a general pop-
ulation-based survey (European Community Respiratory Health Survey I). Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(11):797–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.05.012.
41. Matricardi PM, Kleine-Tebbe J, Hoffmann HJ, et al. EAACI molecular allergology user’s
guide. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(Suppl 23):1–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/
pai.12563.
42. Luengo O, Cardona V.Component resolved diagnosis: when should it be used? Clin Transl
Allergy. 2014;4:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-7022-4-28.
43. Carlson G, Coop C.Pollen food allergy syndrome (PFAS): a review of current available
literature. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019;123(4):359–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
anai.2019.07.022.
44. Klemans RJB, Otte D, Knol M, et al. The diagnostic value of specic IgE to Ara h 2 to
predict peanut allergy in children is comparable to a validated and updated diagnostic pre­diction model. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131(1):157–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaci.2012.08.010.
45. Martín-Muñoz MF, Diaz-Perales A, Cannabal J, Quirce S.Anaphylaxis to hidden potato aller-
gens in a peach and egg allergic boy. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;49(1):45–8.
46. Heaps A, Carter S, Selwood C, et al. The utility of the ISAC allergen array in the investigation
of idiopathic anaphylaxis. Clin Exp Immunol. 2014;177(2):483–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cei.12334.
47. Sahiner UM, Yavuz ST, Buyuktiryaki B, et al. Serum basal tryptase levels in healthy chil-
dren: correlation between age and gender. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2014;35(5):404–8. https://
doi.org/10.2500/aap.2014.35.3769.
48. Michel M, Klingebiel C, Vitte J.Tryptase in type I hypersensitivity. Ann Allergy Asthma
Immunol. 2023;130(2):169–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2022.08.996.
49. Valent P, Bonadonna P, Hartmann K, et al. Why the 20% + 2 tryptase formula is a diagnostic
gold standard for severe systemic mast cell activation and mast cell activation syndrome. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2019;180(1):44–51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501079.
C. Özdemiral and Ü. M. Şahiner
17 Allergen Testing: Purpose, Procedure, Interpretation
50. Santos AF, Douiri A, Bécares N, et al. Basophil activation test discriminates between allergy
and tolerance in peanut-sensitized children. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(3):645–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2014.04.039.
51. Knol EF, Mul FP, Jansen H, Calafat J, Roos D.Monitoring human basophil activation via
CD63 monoclonal antibody 435. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1991;88(3 Pt 1):328–38. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0091-6749(91)90094-5.
52. Santos AF, Alpan O, Hoffmann HJ. Basophil activation test: mechanisms and consider-
ations for use in clinical trials and clinical practice. Allergy. 2021;76(8):2420–32. https://doi.
org/10.1111/all.14747.
53. Ansotegui IJ, Melioli G, Canonica GW, et al. IgE allergy diagnostics and other rel-
evant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper. World Allergy Organ J. 2020;13(2):100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2019.100080.
54. Dordal MT, Lluch-Bernal M, Sánchez MC, et al. Allergen-specic nasal provocation testing:
review by the rhinoconjunctivitis committee of the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2011;21(1):1–12; quiz follow 12.
55. Augé J, Vent J, Agache I, et al. EAACI position paper on the standardization of nasal allergen
challenges. Allergy. 2018;73(8):1597–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13416.
56. Jacobs RL, Harper N, He W, et al. Responses to ragweed pollen in a pollen challenge cham-
ber versus seasonal exposure identify allergic rhinoconjunctivitis endotypes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(1):122–127.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.03.031.
57. Developing drug products for treatment guidance for industry. U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-
documents/allergic-rhinitis-developing-drug-products-treatment-guidance-industry.
Accessed 24 July 2023.
58. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on the clinical
development of products for specic immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic diseases. November 2008
59. Crapo RO, Casaburi R, Coates AL, et al. Guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge
testing-1999. This ofcial statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(1):309–29. https://
doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.161.1.ats11-99.
60. Hallstrand TS, Leuppi JD, Joos G, et al. ERS technical standard on bronchial challenge
testing: pathophysiology and methodology of indirect airway challenge testing. Eur Respir J. 2018;52(5):1801033. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01033-2018.
61. Meng Y, Wang Y, Lou H, et al. Specic immunoglobulin E in nasal secretions for the diag-
nosis of local allergic rhinitis. Rhinology. 2019;57(4):313–20. https://doi.org/10.4193/
Rhin18.292.
62. Rondón C, Eguíluz-Gracia I, Shamji MH, et al. IgE test in secretions of patients with
respiratory allergy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018;18(12):67. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11882-018-0821-7.
63. Vanderhaegen T, Gengler I, Dendooven A, Chenivesse C, Lefèvre G, Mortuaire G.Eosinophils
in the eld of nasal polyposis: towards a better understanding of biologic therapies. Clinic Rev Allerg Immunol. 2022;62(1):90–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-021-08844-7.
64. Bystrom J, Amin K, Bishop-Bailey D. Analysing the eosinophil cationic protein—a clue
to the function of the eosinophil granulocyte. Respir Res. 2011;12(1):1–20. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1465-9921-12-10.
235

Smell Testing: Purpose, Procedure, Interpretation

AliTürkcan, NurayBayar Muluk, andPhilippeRombaux

18.1 Introduction

Deterioration of the sense of smell can be either quantitative (a reduction in inten­sity) or qualitative (a change in quality or degree of distortion). To a greater extent than via history, olfactory testing can reveal quantitative impairment (such as distor­tion) [1].
Clinical olfactory testing presents a patient with an olfactory probe to his or her nose and records the individual’s reaction. This type of evaluation is sometimes called “psychophysical testing” [2, 3]. Patients undergoing olfactory testing should be cooperative, able to follow directions, and articulate their preferences [2]. Odor identication and odor discrimination tests are examples of suprathreshold olfac­tory testing. Olfactory threshold tests fall into a similar category. Supranasal tests are more likely to evaluate the central processing of olfactory information. In con­trast, odor threshold tests are more likely to evaluate the peripheral olfactory ability (such as the conductive and sensorineural function of the nose) [2, 4]. Consequently, olfactory testing [1] might consist of both odor threshold tests and suprathresh­old tests.
18
A. Türkcan Department of Otolaryngology, Van Research and Training Hospital, Van, Türkiye
N. Bayar Muluk (*) Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Türkiye
P. Rombaux Department of Otorhinolaryngology, and Institute of Neurosciences, Catholic University of Louvain, Saint Luc University Clinics, Brussels, Belgium e-mail: Philippe.Rombaux@uclouvain.be
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 H. Yüksel et al. (eds.), Pediatric Airway Diseases, Comprehensive ENT,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74853-0_18
237
238
A. Türkcan et al.

18.2 Possible Olfactory Disorder Diagnosis

18.2.1 Conductive Defects
Many problems with smell may be traced back to inammation. Some examples include allergic rhinitis, acute rhinitis, and toxic rhinitis (caused by cocaine usage). Despite effective allergic, medicinal, and surgical treatment, the gradual mucosal illness caused by chronic rhinosinusitis frequently results in impaired olfactory function.
The olfactory epithelium may not receive odorants if a mass blocks the nasal cavity. Nasal polyps, inverted papilloma, and other nasal tumors are the most preva­lent conditions [5].
Obstruction can also be caused by congenital disabilities, including encephalo­celes and dermoid cysts [5].
Hyposmia is caused by decreased or eliminated nasal airow and is common in patients with a laryngectomy or tracheotomy. Lack of early stimulation of the olfactory system [5] is a possible explanation for long-term difculties with olfaction in children who have had tracheotomies and are subsequently decannulated.
18.2.2 Defects intheCentral Nervous System or thePeripheral
Nervous System
Infectious and inammatory diseases exacerbate central abnormalities in olfaction and transmission. Although a viral URTI can cause a loss of smell because it replaces olfactory neuroepithelium with respiratory epithelium, research suggests that stem cells persist, opening the door to the possibility of olfactory epithelial regeneration in some cases. In these circumstances, restoring the sense of smell might take months, even years, and in rare cases, may never happen at all. The inability to smell is a symptom of several disorders, including multiple sclerosis, Wegener granulo­matosis, and sarcoidosis (which affects brain structures). Although chronic rhinosi­nusitis was formerly assumed to be primarily a conductive problem due to mucosal edema and polyp development, recent research suggests that it also disrupts the neuroepithelium, leading to permanent loss of olfactory receptors due to up­regulated apoptosis [5].
18.2.3 Inherited Disorders
Some congenital disorders have been linked to a decline in brain function. Genetic olfactory dysfunction, such as that seen in people with Kallmann syndrome, results from underdevelopment of the olfactory system and hypogonadotropic hypogonad­ism. One research showed that patients with Kallmann syndrome lacked the vom­eronasal organ [5].
18 Smell Testing: Purpose, Procedure, Interpretation
239
18.2.3.1 Hormonal Disturbances
Olfactory function may be impacted by endocrine disorders (such as hypothyroid­ism, hypoadrenalism, and diabetes mellitus) [5].
18.2.3.2 Systemic andInhalant Drug Toxicity
Olfactory impairment may be caused by the toxicity of systemic or inhaled medi­cines (such as aminoglycosides or formaldehyde). Alcohol, nicotine, chemical sol­vents, and zinc salts applied topically are some drugs and molecules that might affect your sense of smell [6].
18.3 Anatomy oftheOlfactory System
The olfactory neuroepithelium is found above the cribriform plate, the superior nasal septum, and the superior-lateral nasal wall of each nasal chamber. In this pseu­dostratied neuroepithelium, the primary olfactory receptors are located. This region is a thick neural sheet in newborns, but it is interdigitated with respiratory and olfactory tissues in adolescents and adults. Humans’ olfactory neuron count declines with aging. The olfactory epithelium is made up of olfactory sensory neu­rons and includes basal cells that enable regeneration of the epithelium and the olfactory sensory neurons themselves [5, 7].
The ability to smell relies on olfactory receptor cells activated by volatile sub­stances. The olfactory receptors can only be activated if molecules in the air touch them as they travel through the nasal canal on relatively turbulent air currents. Retronasal olfaction refers to the process by which odorants enter the nose from the back, through the nasopharynx, and then travel to the olfactory receptor. Flavor perception while eating and drinking is widely believed to be facilitated by this process. To reach the olfactory receptor [8], odorants must rst penetrate the muco­sal membrane. The intensity of an aroma is proportional to the time, volume, and speed with which it is inhaled [5].
There is a primary sensory bipolar neuron in each olfactory receptor cell. More than 100 million of these neurons are in the typical nasal cavity. In contrast to other neurons, olfactory neurons are continually produced by the underlying basal cells. Each new receptor cell is created on average every 30–60days [5].
Each new receptor cell develops connections with mitral and tufted cells in the olfactory bulb [5] via an axon (CN I) sent to the central nervous system.
There is a lengthy central process on the bipolar olfactory neurons and a shorter peripheral process. The mucosal surface is covered in a thick mat of immobile cilia, and the peripheral process continues to the mucosa, where it terminates in an olfac­tory knob. Odorant interactions are mediated by receptors expressed in the cilia. G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) linked to adenylate cyclase comprise the odor receptor protein family. Linda Buck and Richard Axel won the Nobel Prize in 2004 [5] for discovering the genes that encode them in 1991.
The most prominent gene family in the human genome consists of over 900 members. Since each neuron in a mouse only expresses a single gene, odorants are