Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
13 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2008-02-29
2008-09-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Our intent is to determine if CO2 has an effect on nasal challenge with antigen as a predictor of whether it will have a beneficial effect on the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Effect of Nasal Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Used As-Needed in the Symptomatic Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis
NCT00917020
The Effect of Nasal Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis
NCT00688441
The Effect of Nasal Carbon Dioxide (CO2) on Nasal Congestion in Subjects With Perennial Allergic Rhinitis
NCT00638755
The Effect of Nasal Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Symptomatic Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis
NCT00917111
Study of a Topical Nasal Spray to Ease the Symptoms of Hayfever
NCT01500629
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Subjects: Twelve subjects participated. Subjects were studied outside their allergy season. All subjects were healthy except for mild asthma requiring only as-needed bronchodilators. They were not on any medications and had not received antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists for at least 1 week and intranasal steroids for at least 1 month before enrollment and for the duration of the study.
Treatment: CO2 was applied for 10 seconds in each nostril using a special applicator (plastic tight-seal nosepiece) attached to a CO2 canister and a flow control valve. It was delivered at a flow rate of 0.5 standard L/min with the mouth open to prevent inhalation. Thus, for 20-second duration of administration, the total dose of CO2 delivered was 167 mL. The amount of CO2 delivered to the mucosa is unknown. The no-treatment arm involved placement of the device but no gas was delivered. Therefore, neither the subjects nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment administered. The no-treatment arm did not involve the delivery of air without CO2 to the nose because we were concerned that blowing dry air into the nose might cause a mucosal reaction that could confound the results. We have previously shown that cold, dry air challenges create a hyperosmolar environment, triggers mast cell activation, and induces a nasonasal reaction.7 Thus, because our primary outcome was the objective measure of the nasonasal reflex, we avoided this possibility.
Nasal Challenge: The subjects were allowed 15 minutes to acclimatize to the laboratory environment before challenge. Baseline sneezes reflecting the 15 minutes of acclimatization and nasal and eye symptoms were recorded followed by collection of a nasal scraping for quantitation of eosinophils in nasal secretions. Sneezes were recorded by the subjects during each of the assessed intervals of the challenge protocol. The subjects were reminded to keep track of the number of sneezes by the research coordinator who was present for the duration of the challenges. Intranasal CO2 or sham was then applied for 10 seconds to each nostril. Thirty minutes later, sneezes and symptoms were recorded again, to reflect the 30-minute time period, and nasal challenge was initiated. Because we were interested in evaluating the effect of the treatment on allergen-induced nasal reflexes, we used filter paper disks to perform the challenges and monitor the secretory response as previously described.
Briefly, 8-mm filter paper disks (Shandon, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) were used for both nasal challenge and collection of resultant secretions. They were placed on the anterior nasal septum, beyond the mucocutaneous junction, under direct vision using a nasal speculum, forceps, and a headlight. Fifty microliters of challenge solutions were placed on the disks, which were then applied to the nasal septum for 1 minute. Thirty seconds after removal, two preweighed filter paper disks were placed on both sides of the nasal septum for 30 seconds, collecting nasal secretions from the challenge site (ipsilateral) and the contralateral nostril. These disks were then immediately placed back into microtubes and weighed. The difference in their weight before and after challenge was the weight of produced nasal secretions, which was recorded in milligrams. Ten minutes after each challenge, the number of sneezes as well as symptoms on each side were recorded by the subjects reflective of the 10-minute interval The first challenge was performed using phenol-buffered saline, the diluent for the allergen extracts, and this was followed by 2 increasing doses of grass or ragweed allergen. The time from treatment administration to the first allergen challenge was approximately 40 minutes and to the second allergen challenge, 50 minutes. The amount of allergen applied on the paper disks for challenge were 333 and 1000 BAU (bioequivalent allergy unit) of grass allergen extract (Hollister-Stier, Spokane, WA) or 50 microliters of ragweed antigen extract at concentrations of 1:666 and 1:200 w/v (Hollister-Stier). The subjects came back to the laboratory 24 hours later and underwent a scraping of their nasal secretions to evaluate for eosinophil influx.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
CROSSOVER
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Carbon dioxide
nasal Carbon dioxide, USP (CO2) administered 30 minutes prior to nasal challenge
Carbon dioxide, USP
Carbon dioxide (CO2) delivered via a nosepiece at a flow rate of 0.5 (± 0.05) SLPM for 10 seconds /nostril
Placebo
nasal placebo administered 30 minutes prior to nasal challenge
Placebo
Nasal placebo
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Carbon dioxide, USP
Carbon dioxide (CO2) delivered via a nosepiece at a flow rate of 0.5 (± 0.05) SLPM for 10 seconds /nostril
Placebo
Nasal placebo
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. History of grass and/or ragweed allergic rhinitis.
3. Positive skin test to grass and/or ragweed antigen.
4. Positive response to screening nasal challenge.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Pregnant or lactating women.
3. Upper respiratory infection within 14 days of study start.
18 Years
45 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Capnia, Inc.
INDUSTRY
University of Chicago
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Robert Naclerio
MD
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Robert Naclerio, M.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Chicago
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Baroody FM, Gavanescu L, Wang JH, DeTineo M, Naclerio RM. The effect of intranasal carbon dioxide on the acute response to nasal challenge with allergen. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2011 May-Jun;32(3):206-12. doi: 10.2500/aap.2011.32.3442.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
15835A
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.