Cited by 76Allergic Rhinitis and SensitizationAsthma and respiratory diseasesDermatology and Skin Diseases

Topical corticosteroid inhibits interleukin‐4, ‐5 and ‐13 in nasal secretions following allergen challenge

Open access
Erin, E. M., Zacharasiewicz, A. S., Nicholson, G. C., Tan, A. J., Higgins, L. A., Williams, T. J., Murdoch, R. D., Durham, S. R. +2 more·2005·Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Abstract

Summary: Background Cytokines and chemokines produced by allergen‐reactive T‐helper type 2 (Th2) cells may be pivotal to the pathophysiology of allergic disorders. Objective This study was performed to assess the effect of 7 days of topical corticosteroid on nasal allergen challenge (NAC) in terms of eosinophils, cytokines and chemokines obtained by nasal lavage and filter paper methods. Methods Patients with grass pollen seasonal‐allergic rhinitis (n=13) out of season received nasal challenge following matched placebo (twice daily into each nostril for 7 days) and fluticasone propionate (100 μg twice daily into each nostril for 7 days). Chemokine and cytokine levels were analysed using a sensitive automated bead immunoassay system at intervals up to 8 h after NAC. Results Levels of cytokines and chemokines from filter paper were generally higher than from nasal lavage. Fluticasone propionate caused a reduction in symptoms, total leukocyte counts and eosinophils, and abrogation of IL‐4, IL‐5, IL‐6 and IL‐13 responses in the filter paper taken in the late phase (P<0.05 for IL‐4 and IL‐13, P<0.01 for IL‐5 and IL‐6). Levels of chemokines (eotaxin, RANTES, MCP‐1, MIP‐1α, IL‐8 and IP‐10) were also reduced in the late phase (P<0.01 at 8 h). However, levels of IL‐2, IL‐3, IL‐7, IL‐12 (p40 and p70), ‐15, TNF‐α, IFN‐γ and GM‐CSF were not affected. Conclusion Fluticasone propionate has selective inhibitory effects on Th2 cytokine synthesis following nasal challenge, while also decreasing release of chemokines, but not affecting levels of Th1 cytokines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02381.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Levels of chemokines TARC/CCL17, MDC/CCL22, eotaxin, RANTES, MCP-1, and MIP-1α are elevated after nasal allergen challenge.

    “Similarly, levels of chemokines such as thymus-regulated and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC, CCL17), macrophage derived chemokine (MDC, CCL22), eotaxin, RANTES, MCP-1, and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1α were elevated.388-391”

    From International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (2018) · cites this paper as [388]

    The Results section ('Effects of nasal allergen in placebo group compared with baseline'; page not provided) reports post-challenge increases in eotaxin, RANTES, MCP-1, and MIP-1α. The provided passages do not report increases in TARC/CCL17 or MDC/CCL22, so the source supports only four of the six listed chemokines. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Leckie MJ, ten Brinke A, Khan J et al. Effects of an interleukin-5 blocking monoclonal antibody on eosinophils, airway hyperre- sponsiveness, and the response to allergen in patients with asthma. Lancet 2000; 356:2144-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erin, E. M., Zacharasiewicz, A. S., Nicholson, G. C., Tan, A. J., Higgins, L. A., Williams, T. J., Murdoch, R. D., Durham, S. R., Barnes, P. J., & Hansel, T. T.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Hansel, T. T.
Venue
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-12
Volume
35
Issue
12
Pages
1608-1614
ISSN
  • 0954-7894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2222
OpenAlex
W2081992291
Cited by
76
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical & Experimental Allergy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
GlaxoSmithKline
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
Keywords
topical corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate, allergic rhinitis, grass pollen allergy, nasal allergen challenge, Th2 cytokines, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, interleukin-6, chemokines, eosinophils, nasal secretions, Th1 cytokines
MeSH terms
Fluticasone, Adrenal Cortex Hormones, Adult, Allergens, Analysis of Variance, Androstadienes, Female, Poaceae, Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal, Humans, Interleukins, Male, Nasal Mucosa, Nasal Provocation Tests, Pollen, Interleukin-4, Interleukin-5, Single-Blind Method, Nasal Lavage Fluid, Interleukin-13

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review