ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives@#Biomarkers of allergic rhinitis (AR) have been studied; however, little is known regarding their practical application in the diagnosis of AR. Previous studies collected samples using saline lavage, nasal brushing, or nasal biopsy. To utilize nasal fluid as a diagnostic tool, we need to standardize the method of sample collection. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the difference in concentration of biomarkers depending on the method of nasal fluid collection.Materials and Method: Forty-five AR patients who had greater than moderate AR symptoms and who had positive results on skin prick test and serum-specific IgE tests were enrolled in this study. Nasal fluid was collected using the direct method or saline lavage method. The concentration of each biomarker was analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and the values compared. @*Results@#Nasal fluid samples were collected directly from 14 patients and were collected via saline lavage in 31 patients. No significant differences were found in the median value of each biomarker between the two methods of nasal sample collection. @*Conclusion@#Nasal fluid collection method does not significantly affect biomarker concentration.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives@#Biomarkers of allergic rhinitis (AR) have been studied; however, little is known regarding their practical application in the diagnosis of AR. Previous studies collected samples using saline lavage, nasal brushing, or nasal biopsy. To utilize nasal fluid as a diagnostic tool, we need to standardize the method of sample collection. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the difference in concentration of biomarkers depending on the method of nasal fluid collection.Materials and Method: Forty-five AR patients who had greater than moderate AR symptoms and who had positive results on skin prick test and serum-specific IgE tests were enrolled in this study. Nasal fluid was collected using the direct method or saline lavage method. The concentration of each biomarker was analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and the values compared. @*Results@#Nasal fluid samples were collected directly from 14 patients and were collected via saline lavage in 31 patients. No significant differences were found in the median value of each biomarker between the two methods of nasal sample collection. @*Conclusion@#Nasal fluid collection method does not significantly affect biomarker concentration.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives@#Although many studies have explored the factors affecting compliance with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), the findings remain controversial. This study aimed to analyze CPAP compliance after insurance coverage began in Korea and to investigate what factors influenced CPAP compliance.Materials and Method: The subjects were 1,037 patients who were prescribed a CPAP after polysomnography at the Seoul Sleep Clinic; data were reviewed retrospectively. We classified those that used a CPAP for more than 4 hours per day for 70% or more days per month as into the good compliance group. We compared the ratio of good compliance by gender, position dependence, rapid eye movement (REM) dependence, telemonitoring of CPAP, pressure modification, and OSA severity. @*Results@#There were no statistically significant differences in ratio of good compliance group according to gender, position dependence, REM dependence, or disease severity. When using a fixed CPAP (92.2%) rather than an auto PAP (88.4%), the ratio of patients in the good compliance group was significantly higher. Non-positioner and fixed CPAP users showed significantly longer average usage time. @*Conclusion@#In a 3-month short-term follow-up study of CPAP compliance, the telemonitoring group and those using a fixed CPAP showed a higher ratio of good compliance. Average CPAP usage time was longer when using a fixed CPAP and in non-positioners. As age increased, CPAP usage time was longer, and the average compliance rate tended to increase.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives@#Although patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) present a similar degree of olfactory dysfunction, their impairments in threshold, discrimination, and identification test results may vary. We investigated factors related to each of these components using the Korean version of the Sniffin’ Sticks test II in CRS patients.Subjects and Method A total of 120 CRS patients with olfactory dysfunction were enrolled and assigned to hyposmia and anosmia groups. Correlation between the three components were examined in both groups. We also subdivided patients into higher- and lower-score groups according to the threshold, discrimination, and identification scores within the hyposmia and anosmia groups to determine associated factors among the demographic factors, CRS severity on computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic findings. @*Results@#Threshold, discrimination, and identification scores were significantly correlated in hyposmia patients. Age [odds ratio (OR), 0.94] was associated with the threshold score, and the anterior olfactory cleft opacification score (OR, 1.31) on CT was associated with identification difficulties in hyposmia patients. The posterior olfactory cleft opacification score was associated with threshold (OR, 2.76) and identification difficulties (OR, 1.68) in anosmia patients. However, we could not identify significant risk factors for discrimination in both groups. @*Conclusion@#We demonstrated that the three components of the olfactory function test for CRS are significantly correlated in patients with hyposmia. Age was associated with threshold score in hyposmia patients and CRS severity, and with discrimination scores in both hyposmia and anosmia patients. These findings will help the understanding of pathophysiology of CRSrelated olfactory dysfunction.Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2020;63(8):358-68
ABSTRACT