allergic vs nonallergic asthma

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

runcyclexcski@yahoo.com - 16 Jan 2007 03:33 GMT

Cam anyone point me towards the right readong on the differences
between allergic and nonallergic asthma? From what I understand
allergic asthma is when you react to a certain allergen, and can get
better by avoiding that allegen, while in non-allergic you react to
everything (my case). My docs never brought up this distinction.

Reply to this Message

TRN - 16 Jan 2007 13:24 GMT

http://www.aaaai.org/allergicasthma/

There has been years of discussion this and I am not sure there is an answer
unless you go by a definition like a certain IgE count means allergy. I used
to think allergic was more childhood and nonallergic was more adult onset,
but now I see the medical profession is doing an about face on that. One
description of allergic asthma I read years ago suggested you only had
allergic if you had eye systems - watery, itchy, and so on, I'm not sure
there is any consensus on that now.

Have you been to an allergist or are you just trying to figure out if it is
worth going?. I went years ago and was negative except for grass, but I am
considering going again for many reasons - advances in the field, knowing
that asthma "develops", seeing posts from others who find answers upon
retesting - that kind of thing. I hope someone else who has read much less
conflicting studies has a more definitive answer for you. I've personally
don't have a clue how you know for sure and I read alot. Basically, they
test you for all the "usual suspects", but what if your trigger isn't one of
the "usual suspects". You could have allergic and still get a diagnosis of
nonallergic because they sure don't test for everything.

> Cam anyone point me towards the right readong on the differences
> between allergic and nonallergic asthma? From what I understand
> allergic asthma is when you react to a certain allergen, and can get
> better by avoiding that allegen, while in non-allergic you react to
> everything (my case). My docs never brought up this distinction.

Reply to this Message

runcyclexcski@yahoo.com - 17 Jan 2007 23:06 GMT

> Have you been to an allergist or are you just trying to figure out if it is
> worth going?. I went years ago and was negative except for grass, but I am
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the "usual suspects". You could have allergic and still get a diagnosis of
> nonallergic because they sure don't test for everything.

I am trying to schedule an appntmt with an allergist right now. I seem
to be allergic to "everything" - stress, fumes, odors, exercise, car
exhaust. I am not sure if it's an allergen that has originally
sensitized me like that, or if it's just an ongoing inflammation in the
lungs which made the lungs itchy and sensitive. Your point about not
being able to test for all allergens is my thoughts exactly. Pretty
lame science.

Reply to this Message

TRN - 18 Jan 2007 18:42 GMT

> I am trying to schedule an appntmt with an allergist right now. I seem
> to be allergic to "everything" - stress, fumes, odors, exercise, car
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> being able to test for all allergens is my thoughts exactly. Pretty
> lame science.

I have all those triggers, plus others- like trouble before Thunderstorms
and in bathrooms as well (suspected mold allergy). Have you ever vacuumed,
for instance and felt better or worse (ineffective filtration)? Or cleaned a
bathroom and had more air and less coughing? Those are other indications you
may have allergic asthma.

The triggers you listed would be considered nonallergic. I think the
scientific clinical trials to watch are for the IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13
trials - that stops the process from what I understand whether you are
allergic or not. The IgE drugs and desensitization only help allergic
asthmatics. Do a bit of reading and tell me what you think, but my
understanding is they have a better idea about the mechanism of asthmatic
reactions and these new drugs (when they come to market) are our best hope.

I know how frustrated you feel. I was told by one doctor if I really had
asthma, those asthma meds would work for me. I ran into a study that was
presented this year that there are many asthmatics who are considered
uncontrolled, and if you discount the ones who are not complaint with taking
their meds, there still may be a quarter of the asthmatic population that
can be considered uncontrolled. Certainly there is variation in how
uncontrolled ( from ER visits, to many doctor visits) but that study goes to
show you those asthma meds DON'T work for everyone.

Reply to this Message

runcyclexcski@yahoo.com - 20 Jan 2007 08:11 GMT

> I have all those triggers, plus others- like trouble before Thunderstorms
> and in bathrooms as well (suspected mold allergy). Have you ever vacuumed,
> for instance and felt better or worse (ineffective filtration)? Or cleaned a
> bathroom and had more air and less coughing? Those are other indications you
> may have allergic asthma.

I've been reading on filtering... you need a powerful filter to reduce
the particles by 80%, so vaccuuming probably does not do much. I did
move to an aprtment with no carpets, and did not get better.

> The triggers you listed would be considered nonallergic. I think the
> scientific clinical trials to watch are for the IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13
> trials - that stops the process from what I understand whether you are
> allergic or not.

And which ones were allergic-specific? Does Singulair target allergic
ILs? Singulair did not do anything to me. The only thing that helps me
is systemic prednisone, Advair is not as good. And traveling to places
with no industry/traffic.

BTW, rememeber that ASHMI stuff? From what I understand that was
allergic athsma-specific. It did not do anything for me (I stopped
after week 4)

>The IgE drugs and desensitization only help allergic
> asthmatics. Do a bit of reading and tell me what you think, but my
> understanding is they have a better idea about the mechanism of asthmatic
> reactions and these new drugs (when they come to market) are our best hope.

Do you mean the drugs against IL4, 5, 13? There could be a trial
already going on.

> I know how frustrated you feel. I was told by one doctor if I really had
> asthma, those asthma meds would work for me.

Same thing with me.

>I ran into a study that was
> presented this year that there are many asthmatics who are considered
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> uncontrolled ( from ER visits, to many doctor visits) but that study goes to
> show you those asthma meds DON'T work for everyone.

I've read about "steroid-resistant asthma". I guess it's different from
non-allergic.

Reply to this Message

TRN - 20 Jan 2007 22:10 GMT

< I've been reading on filtering... you need a powerful filter to reduce

> the particles by 80%, so vaccuuming probably does not do much. I did
> move to an aprtment with no carpets, and did not get better.

Still, you have the shower problem. I read if your allergy is mold, there
isn't much they can do to help you. I have also read that standard allergy
testing, particularly RAST testing, is not an effective way to diagnose mold
allergy.

> And which ones were allergic-specific? Does Singulair target allergic
> ILs? Singulair did not do anything to me. The only thing that helps me
> is systemic prednisone, Advair is not as good. And traveling to places
> with no industry/traffic.

No, Singulair seems to help obsese people interestingly enough. It helps
about a third of asthmatics well, the next third somewhat and the last third
get no positive result. It is a leukotriene inhibitor and I am not certain
that I have read it only helps allergic asthma. I tried to bring up an old
file I used to show how the responses relate, but it is no longer on the
web, so perhaps it is now old information. But I can send it if it is of
interest to you. It is the goblet cells that are producing the mucus - those
are the ones to fear! LOLOL

Rememeber that ASHMI stuff? From what I understand that was

> allergic athsma-specific. It did not do anything for me (I stopped
> after week 4)

I want to thank you for giving it a shot so that the group and move on to
the "next" asthma treatment.

> Do you mean the drugs against IL4, 5, 13? There could be a trial
> already going on.

One started in November. I know there are no new drugs scheduled to come to
market for 3 years, so it will be a long wait. Unless you fall on some
altmed thing that works for you. Personally I have tried several and they
aren't of any use either. (Sigh).

> Same thing with me.

Isn't it the pits? To be ill and no one will even admit there is something
that is wrong with you? Maybe the Emory doc is right when he says no one can
help me. They just don't know how. Since my condition is more like COPD,
they can't get away from the blame the victim stuff - you know "you smoked
so what did you expect". But I didn't smoke and so I can't stop. More
worthless, useless advice.

Did you ever get the Sinus CT Sinus scan or Ph Probe? Can you eliminate the
other major conditions yet?

> I've read about "steroid-resistant asthma". I guess it's different from
> non-allergic.

Yes, but you won't know if you are steroid resistant or just allergic to the
preservatives and propellants unless you get a nebulized form of your
steroid medication. Or perhaps you are just having a bad time and it does
take the steroids awhile to work. Last spring I had 3 months of no air and
nothing seemed to help. Little by little it got better. Exasterbations of
asthma and Chronic Bronchitis or thought to be initiated by viruses et al,
so maybe I just caught something. Coughing can cause more coughing. What I
do know is that you can't get
antibiotics here in CDC country (Atl) since CDC started on its antibiotic
resistance program, so I am unable to try that again at this time.

I have tried also the new nebulized saline solution used by people with CF
without result. I thought with the excess mucus production, I had a chance
that it would work since Cystic Fybrosis also has excessive mucus
production, but no luck. I would like to try a nebulized steroid because I
cough for 2 hours after using Advair - like that is fun. I have collected a
list of things to try, but it takes time and the condition comes and goes in
severity, so you don't know if you are just in a good period or if something
is really working. Things come and go on the newsgroup and so you basically
keep watching. Oh, yes, sunlight is supposed to help. I don't think that am
personally am better in the summer, but there is another thing to try that
is free.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Reply to this Message

Richard Friedel - 21 Jan 2007 09:48 GMT

The interminable discussions here on asthma drugs and their failure to
provide anything like a causal remedy together with the problems of
fraud with asthma diagnoses in sport must surely provide circumstantial
evidence that there might be no medical cure for asthma. This might be
because of doctors' inability to scientifically consider empirical
non-drug approaches, like yoga breathing exercises. See f. i.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-386913693756370208&q=ramdev&hl=en.
Kapalabhati demonstrated here, giving the lungs a good shake down
seems very likely to causally counter the perfusion/ventilation
inequality in the lungs as a key asthma symptom. Sure the trainer talks
about the exercises curing aids etc. and preaches Hinduism, but the
exercises themselves have a good reputation. Who is to say that they
are less promising than asthma drugs or that generally doctors are not
subject to professional blindness on a paramount role of drugs? Aren't
there any medical heroes around like Clara Maass, who volunteered to
let herself be infected with yellow fever and died?

I guess that loyalty to scientific medicine with a nerdish tendency can
be misunderstood and overdone. Regards, Richard Friedel

Reply to this Message

00doc - 21 Jan 2007 15:44 GMT

> The interminable discussions here on asthma drugs

It is an asthma group. Drugs and trigger avoidance are the only things
proved so far to have a positive effect (which is not the same as saying the
only things that will be proved tohave a positive effect). Finding those
discussions to be "interminable" is a strange point of view.

> and their failure to
> provide anything like a causal remedy together with the problems of
> fraud with asthma diagnoses in sport must surely provide circumstantial
> evidence that there might be no medical cure for asthma. This might be
> because of doctors' inability to scientifically consider empirical
> non-drug approaches, like yoga breathing exercises.

Or it might be becasue no cure has been found.

<snip>

> Who is to say that they
> are less promising than asthma drugs

It is not for anyone to say they are less promising. It is for the
proponents of those treatments to say that they are just as or more
promising and be convincing about it. Please note - the "be convincing" part
is the key. Citing works that you think find intriguing but failed to
convince many people of anything will only support my point - not refute it.
Other people's innability to demonstrate "promise" is not the fault of
medical doctors or the result of any blindness on their part.

> or that generally doctors are not
> subject to professional blindness on a paramount role of drugs?

There is no doubt that there are many biases and some degree of inertia. A
pharmaceutical industry that is willing to decieve if necessary and a
government that seems bent on helping them do it doesn't help much either.
However, doctors do routinely recommend non-drug therapies for asthma and
allergy as well as for many other conditions. The vast majority of doctors
recommend non-drug therapies many times more often than they recommend any
particular drug. It is a little absurd to suggest that doctors are unwilling
to see or use the type of treatment that they recommend the most.

>Aren't
> there any medical heroes around like Clara Maass, who volunteered to
> let herself be infected with yellow fever and died?

I guess when someone comes up with a suggested asthma treatment that might
require that kind of heroism we'll find out. Then again, you could
volunteer.

> I guess that loyalty to scientific medicine with a nerdish tendency can
> be misunderstood and overdone. Regards, Richard Friedel

I suppose. You nicely demonstrate that it is easy to misundertand. What
really remains to be seen is if an irrational rejection of the common wisdom
and proven methods can be overcome.

Signature

00doc

Reply to this Message

TRN - 21 Jan 2007 20:30 GMT

Why Thank You Doc. Very well stated.

> > The interminable discussions here on asthma drugs
>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> really remains to be seen is if an irrational rejection of the common wisdom
> and proven methods can be overcome.

Reply to this Message

Richard Friedel - 22 Jan 2007 14:28 GMT

> > The interminable discussions here on asthma drugs
>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> --
> 00doc

Thanks for your long response and apologies for any lack of tact. I
wanted to post separately but the server was only accepting replies,
not new threads yesterday.

I might be deluding myself on kapalabhati see linked video, but just
what is the implied objection by lack of comment? Yoga in the video
and yoga as available in the west may be a two kettles of fish. If (if!
if! if!) yoga is effective, then this might show that drug treatment to
relax airways is flawed.

It expels mucus and should have a correcting tendency on
perfusion/ventilation unbalance in the lungs. It gives a sort of high.
This might be a winning factor. Regards, and again my apologies to the
original two posters who seem to have enough problems, Richard Friedel

Reply to this Message