Value of Endolymphatic Hydrops and Perilymph Signal Intensity in Suspected Ménière Disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ménière disease is characterized by endolymphatic hydrops, whereas perilymphatic enhancement on MR imaging has been suggested to be of additional value in diagnosing Ménière disease. This study evaluates the presence of endolymphatic hydrops and perilymphatic enhancement in patients with Ménière disease and with other vertigo-associated inner ear pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3D-FLAIR sequence 4 hours after intravenous gadolinium injection was performed to visualize the endolymph and perilymph in 220 patients suspected of having Ménière disease. Patients' ears were retrospectively categorized as having Ménière disease (probable or definite) or other vertigo-associated inner ear pathology not attributable to Ménière disease. Endolymphatic hydrops was evaluated using a visual classification system, and perilymphatic enhancement was scored both visually and quantitatively. RESULTS: Endolymphatic hydrops was present in 137 (91.9%) of the definite Ménière disease ears and in 9 (7.0%) of the ears with other vertigo-associated inner ear pathology (P < .001). The combination of endolymphatic hydrops and visually increased perilymphatic enhancement was present in 122 (81.9%) definite Ménière disease ears compared with 4 (3.1%) ears with other vertigo-associated inner ear pathology (P < .001). This combination increases the positive predictive value from 0.94 for endolymphatic hydrops and 0.91 for perilymphatic enhancement to 0.97. The addition of measured perilymphatic enhancement leads to a moderate decrease in sensitivity from 0.92 for endolymphatic hydrops to 0.86. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of perilymphatic enhancement and endolymphatic hydrops in patients suspected of having Ménière disease increases the positive predictive value in the diagnosis of definite Ménière disease.

Comparison of five new antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) in patients with allergic rhinitis using nasal provocation studies and skin tests.

BACKGROUND: It was the aim of the authors to compare all of the latest second-generation antihistamines and to see if there were significant differences in their efficacy. It is important for ENT specialists to know if these differences exist, as it is for general practitioners trying to choose between these drugs. METHODS: In 12 confirmed grass pollen allergic patients the authors performed nasal smears to asses eosinophilia, histamine/grass pollen skin tests, and grass pollen nasal provocation tests. All tests were performed before and after administration of one of five different antihistamines (cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine, mizolastine) or placebo. The order of administration of antihistamines and placebo was randomised, and patients were not aware of which drug they were given. A decrease in nasal eosinophilia (nasal smear), or nasal or skin reactivity (provocation tests) was looked for. RESULTS: A significant decrease in nasal eosinophilia was observed for all antihistamines but not for placebo. For the grass pollen nasal provocation tests, the decrease was significant for nasal blockage and sneezing; for rhinorrhea there was an insignificant decrease that was true for all antihistamines. A significant reduction in histamine/grass pollen skin test reactivity was also observed for all antihistamines, during an 8 h observation period. A significant difference in efficacy between the different antihistamines could not be found with any of the tests performed. CONCLUSIONS: For the newer nonsedating H1-antagonists there appears to be no clinically relevant differences in activities--at least not in our study. Preference of the patient may be the most important factor in making a choice between these drugs.