Effects of CPAP in patients with obstructive apnoea: is the presence of allergic rhinitis relevant?

• Published in: Sleep & breathing Vol. 21; no. 4; pp. 893 - 900
• Main Authors: Cisternas, A., Aguilar, F., Montserrat, J. M., Àvila, M., Torres, M., Iranzo, A., Berenguer, J., Vilaseca, I.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.12.2017; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Allergic rhinitis; Apnea; Auditory system; Continuous positive airway pressure; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure - adverse effects; Cytology; Daytime; Dentistry; Female; Histamine; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Immunoglobulin E; Internal Medicine; Leukocytes (neutrophilic); Longitudinal Studies; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Neurology; Neutrophils; Nose; Otorhinolaryngology; Pediatrics; Pneumology/Respiratory System; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Respiratory tract; Rhinitis, Allergic - complications; Rhinoconjunctivitis; Sleep; Sleep and wakefulness; Sleep apnea; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive - complications; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive - therapy; Sleep Breathing Physiology and Disorders • Original Article; Sleep disorders; Nasal inflammation; Continuous positive airway pressure; Mucociliary clearance; Sleep apnoea syndrome; Allergic rhinitis
• ISSN: 1520-9512; 1522-1709
• DOI: 10.1007/s11325-017-1510-9

Purpose The aim of the study is to compare the effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on the nasal cavities of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and with or without allergic rhinitis (AR/nonAR). Methods This paper is a prospective, longitudinal study. Thirty-four consecutive CPAP treatment-adherent patients with OSA (17 AR and 17 nonAR) were evaluated before and 2 months after treatment, by means of clinical (otorhinolaryngological symptoms, daytime sleepiness, overall and rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life), anatomical (otorhinolaryngological examination), functional (auditory function, tubal function, nasal airflow, and mucociliary clearance), and biological variables (nasal cytology). No humidifier or anti-allergy medicines were used during treatment. Results Before treatment, patients with AR presented a higher score, compared to nonAR in rhinitis symptoms (4.82 ± 2.53 vs. 0.93 ± 1.02, p  = 0.000), otologic symptoms (2.06 ± 1.95 vs. 0.44 ± 0.72, p  = 0.004), cutaneous/ocular symptoms (2.12 ± 2.17 vs. 0.65 ± 1.17, p  = 0.052), immunoglobulin E (181.82 ± 126.09 vs. 66.13 ± 97.97, p  = 0.004), and nasal neutrophils (14.42 ± 31.94 vs. 0.16 ± 0.39, p  = 0.031). After treatment, nonAR and AR groups improved in daytime sleepiness (11.53 ± 4.60 vs. 7.53 ± 2.87, p  = 0.000 and 13.76 ± 4.93 vs. 7.53 ± 4.41, p  = 0.001) respectively and increased nasal neutrophil (0.16 ± 0.39 vs. 5.78 ± 9.43, p  = 0.001 and 14.42 ± 31.94 vs. 79.47 ± 202.08, p  = 0.035). The symptoms and quality of life improved in patients with AR. NonAR patients, significantly increase nasal dryness (1.65 ± 1.27 vs. 0.00, p  = 0.002) and mucociliary clearance times (38.59 ± 24.90 vs. 26.82 ± 23.18, p  = 0.016). Conclusions CPAP produces inflammation with increased nasal neutrophil levels in AR and nonAR patients. Nevertheless, patients with AR observed an improvement in nasal symptoms and quality of life, whereas in patients without AR, a relevant worsening of nasal dryness and mucociliary transport was observed.