1 Original research article 2 Evaluation of estrogenic receptors in the nasal mucosa of women taking 3 women taking oral contraceptives ☆ 4 Ieda Millas a, ⁎ , Bianca Maria Liquidato b , José Eduardo Lutaif Dolci a , Mirna Duarte Barros b , 5 Roberto Antonio Pinto Paes c , Hudson de Sousa Buck d 6 a Faculty of Medical Sciences, Otorhinolaryngology Department of Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 7 b Faculty of Medical Sciences, Morphology Department of Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 8 c Faculty of Medical Sciences, Pathology Department of Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 9 d Faculty of Medical Sciences, Physiology Department of Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 10 Received 12 February 2010; revised 11 August 2010; accepted 15 September 2010 11 Abstract 12 Background: There is evidence that the nasal mucosa is affected by estrogen influence. Some authors have already detected estrogen 13 receptors (ER) in the nasal mucosa. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about the concentration and distribution of the ER or the 14 possible influence of hormonal contraceptives in the nasal mucosa. 15 Objective: The study was conducted to evaluate the influence of oral contraceptives on the distribution and concentration of estrogenic 16 receptors in nasal mucosa. 17 Study design: Two groups of 32 women with regular menstrual cycles were selected. One group of women was taking oral contraceptives 18 and the other was not. Samples of mucosa of inferior nasal turbinate were analyzed by immunohistochemical staining for alpha and beta ER. 19 Results: The use of oral contraceptives induced a decrease of beta-receptors only in lamina propria cells. In both groups, there was a 20 predominance of beta-receptors. 21 Conclusion: Women who took oral contraceptives showed a decrease of beta-receptors in some cells of the lamina propria. These findings 22 show us the possibility of effects of contraceptive pills on the cells such as fibroblasts, mast cells, plasmocytes, and other inflammatory cells. 23 © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 24 25 Keywords: Estrogen receptors; Estrogens; Hormone; Nasal mucosa; Immunohistochemistry 26 27 1. Introduction 28 Correlations between hormonal and nasal alterations have 29 been made since Hippocrates, who reported that during 30 menstruation or pregnancy, the nasal mucosa would be 31 swollen and that epistaxis would be more severe and 32 frequent during the menstrual period and puberty [1]. 33 In the 19th century (1881), Bresgen described a case of a 34 woman with atrophic rhinitis whose condition worsened 35 during menstruation. Mackenzie (1898) described nasal 36 variations during the menstrual cycle and pregnancy [2]. 37 In the 20th century, Mortimer et al. [3] studied the 38 presence of perivascular edema in nasal mucosa of monkeys 39 (male and female) after administration of estrogen. 40 Bernheimer and Soskin [4] analyzed the nasal mucosa of 41 monkeys (male and female) and observed the presence of 42 perivascular edema after administrating estrogen. Taylor [5] 43 and Helmy et al. [6] related histological abnormalities such as 44 glandularhyperplasia of nasal mucosa of guinea pigs receiving 45 estrogen compared with the control group. Similarly, in the 46 human nasal mucosa, some alterations were described, such 47 as epithelial metaplasia, lymphocyte infiltration, increased 48 vascularity and glandularhyperactivity [7]. 49 Navarrete-Palacios et al. [8] used cytologic analysis to 50 compare nasal and vaginal smears from different phases of 51 the menstrual cycle and observed that both types showed the Contraception xx (2010) xxx – xxx ☆ Where the work was developed: Otorhinolaryngology, Morphology and Physiology Departments of Santa Casa de São Paulo, Faculty of Medical Sciences, São Paulo, Brazil. ⁎ Corresponding author. Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 cj. 1009, 04037- 003, São Paulo, SP-Brazil. Tel.: +55 5082 3260 /5083 7330; fax: +55 5082 3260 /5083 7330. E-mail addresses: iedamillas@uol.com.br, napsc@fcmscsp.edu.br (I. Millas). 0010-7824/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2010.09.008 CON-07512; No of Pages 7