Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease which clinically presents with symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction, while pathologically it is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of esophageal epithelium. Most patients with EoE present with food and/or inhalant allergy symptoms. The results of animal model studies and genetic studies, as well as the efficacy of elimination diets in managing the symptoms, suggest an atopic background of the disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of EoE in a group of patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms and food and/or inhalant allergies and to assess the influence of drugs used in type I allergies on the results of endoscopic, histopathological, and immunohistochemical tests. Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Patients with inhalant/food allergies and upper esophageal symptoms constituted the study group while patients without allergies who were diagnosed with dyspepsia or irritable bowel syndrome constituted the control group. All study group subjects underwent allergy testing, including prick testing and blood tests. All participants underwent a gastroscopy with specimen collection. Esophageal specimens were stained for eotaxin-1 and desmoglein-1. Results: Based on histopathology results, eosinophilic esophagitis was found in 9 of the 73 patients from the study group. All patients with EoE presented with multimorbidity and were diagnosed with at least one allergic disease in addition to EoE. Positive staining for CCL-11 was found in 56 (78%) patients in the study group, including all patients with EoE while only 3 (17%) individuals from the control group showed positive staining. The presence of DSG-1 in esophageal specimens was detected in 6 (7%) subjects from the study group in contrast to 14 (78%) subjects from the control group. DSG-1 was not found in any of the specimens of patients diagnosed with EoE. Conclusions: EoE is a rare disease, usually accompanied by allergic multimorbidity. Positive staining for eotaxin-1 and negative staining for desmoglein-1 in patients with esophageal symptoms and allergies but who did not meet EoE diagnostic criteria could be indicative of subclinical course of the disease or a masking effect of corticosteroids. It is now vitally important for both researchers and practicing clinicians to recognize that eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is not a homogeneous disease but rather consists of multiple subtypes (phenotypes). The so-called “classic” form of EoE—defined by current diagnostic criteria as the presence of more than 15 eosinophils per high power field on histopathological examination—appears to represent only the tip of the iceberg. There is an urgent need for further research in order to refine endoscopic techniques, expand the scope of histopathological assessments, and identify novel biomarkers to better define the distinct phenotypes of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Local allergic rhinitis (LAR) is a specific phenotype of allergic rhinitis. One characteristic feature of LAR is a medical history indicative of an allergic disease, negative skin-prick test results, undetectable levels of specific IgE, and a positive allergen-specific nasal provocation test....

Objectives: The development of allergic conditions is largely dependent on the interactions between genetic (individual genetic predisposition) and environmental factors (exposure to risk factors). The aim of this study was an attempt to assess the influence of selected elements of the hygiene...

The Allergen Challenge Chamber (ACC) is definitely a serious challenge on the one hand and an innovative solution in allergic rhinitis diagnosis on the other. The gradual validation of the chamber (according to the test protocol) will allow for standardisation, which is a process undertaken by...

Thanks to their valuable assessment possibilities (subjective complaints and changes in nasal patency during the examination), nasal provocation tests may serve as an alternative tool for oral food challenges in the future. However, this test requires successive attempts to regulate its methodology in order to develop a standardized lyophilisate form and determine the threshold dose for a positive result. The study objective was to present the methodological foundation for nasal food allergen provocation tests induced by freeze-dried powdered chicken egg whites. A control group of 25 individuals with no history of allergy to chicken eggs or any other allergy was included in the study. Optical rhinometry and visual analog scales were used to assess the response of nasal mucosa to local allergen challenges. Minor variations in nasal flows, as measured by optical rhinometry, were observed in the provocation tests. The mean optical density measurements (as measured regardless of the allergen dose used) varied from positive to negative values and vice versa, e.g., amounting to 0.018 OD (standard deviation 0.095) at 15 min and −0.011 OD (standard deviation 0.090) at 30 min. No significant differences were observed concerning the perceived nasal discomfort using the visual analog scale. Due to the absence of nasal mucosal reactivity, nasal challenge is an excellent methodological tool for implementing food allergen tests.

Background: Monitoring adherence in chronic diseases remains a significant challenge. Allergic rhinitis (AR), one of the most common chronic conditions, serves as an excellent model for studying determinants of app use in monitoring adherence and health assessment during treatment. The Mask‐air® app supports clinical decision‐making by involving patients in symptom observation and promoting adherence to therapy. This study aimed to identify the defining characteristics of Mask‐air® users, describe their disease phenotype and satisfaction with the app, and explore reasons for discontinuation.Materials and Methods: Adult patients 20–44 years old suffering from AR (n = 198) receiving care at an allergy outpatient clinic were invited to participate in a trial using the Mask‐air® app. Investigators collected data on symptoms, administered treatments, and clinical evaluation results through questionnaires. At a follow‐up visit (n = 163), these were compared, and patients were questioned about their satisfaction with the app. Patients presented their app records, and those who declined or stopped using the app were asked to provide reasons in a questionnaire.Results: No distinguishing characteristics of Mask‐air® users (n = 131) were identified compared with those who declined the app (n = 67). App readiness was analyzed according to age, socioeconomic status, disease severity, comorbidities, and therapeutic modality. Respondents were categorized into: those who did not install the app (17.7%), those who installed but did not use it (16.2%), and those who installed and evaluated it (66.2%), with 15.6% failing to produce symptom monitoring records. Overall, satisfaction ratings were high though patients were critical of the app's therapeutic aspect.Conclusions: The study found no specific features distinguishing Mask‐air® users, suggesting that it can be recommended to all patients regardless of gender, socioeconomic or educational status, or disease phenotype. However, with a dropout rate of nearly 50%, it is essential for clinicians to emphasize the app's benefits to improve adherence and engagement.