BACKGROUND: Because of the anatomical complexity and the high output of the human nose, it has been unclear whether nasal nitric oxide (NO) serves as a reliable marker of allergic rhinitis (AR). We examined whether nasal NO levels in the inferior turbinate (IT) surface and the middle meatus (MM) differ in symptomatic AR patients. METHODS: We measured fractional exhaled NO (FeNO) and nasal NO in normal subjects (n = 50) and AR patients with mild symptoms (n = 16) or moderate or severe symptoms (n = 27). Nasal NO measurements were obtained using an electrochemical analyzer connected to a catheter and an air-suction pump (flow rate 50mL/sec). RESULTS: Compared to the normal subjects, the AR patients showed significantly higher nasal FeNO and nasal NO levels in the IT area. No significant difference in the MM area was observed among the three groups. The MM area showed higher NO levels than the IT area in all three groups. The ratio of nasal NO levels of the MM area to the IT area (MM/IT ratio) was significantly lower in the AR groups. The moderate/severe AR patients showed significantly higher nasal NO in the IT area (104.4 vs. 66.2ppb) and lower MM/IT ratios than those in the mild AR patients. The analysis of nasal brushing cells revealed significantly higher eosinophil cationic protein and nitrotyrosine levels in the AR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal NO assessment in the IT area directly reflects persistent eosinophilic inflammation and may be a valid marker to estimate the severity of AR.
BACKGROUND: Because of the anatomical complexity and the high output of the human nose, it has been unclear whether nasal nitric oxide (NO) serves as a reliable marker of allergic rhinitis (AR). We examined whether nasal NO levels in the inferior turbinate (IT) surface and the middle meatus (MM) differ in symptomatic AR patients. METHODS: We measured fractional exhaled NO (FeNO) and nasal NO in normal subjects (n = 50) and AR patients with mild symptoms (n = 16) or moderate or severe symptoms (n = 27). Nasal NO measurements were obtained using an electrochemical analyzer connected to a catheter and an air-suction pump (flow rate 50mL/sec). RESULTS: Compared to the normal subjects, the AR patients showed significantly higher nasal FeNO and nasal NO levels in the IT area. No significant difference in the MM area was observed among the three groups. The MM area showed higher NO levels than the IT area in all three groups. The ratio of nasal NO levels of the MM area to the IT area (MM/IT ratio) was significantly lower in the AR groups. The moderate/severe AR patients showed significantly higher nasal NO in the IT area (104.4 vs. 66.2ppb) and lower MM/IT ratios than those in the mild AR patients. The analysis of nasal brushing cells revealed significantly higher eosinophil cationic protein and nitrotyrosine levels in the AR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal NO assessment in the IT area directly reflects persistent eosinophilic inflammation and may be a valid marker to estimate the severity of AR.