4.2 Article

Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Local Allergic Rhinitis to House Dust Mites

Journal

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages 1047-1050

Publisher

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.1047

Keywords

Local allergic rhinitis; nasal provocation test; house dust mite

Funding

  1. Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI16C0992]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Local allergic rhinitis (LAR) is a localized nasal allergic response in the absence of systemic atopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of LAR in Korean rhinitis patients compared to allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR). A total of 304 rhinitis patients were enrolled from November 2014 to March 2016. A skin prick test, serum total and specific immunoglobulin E, and a nasal provocation test (NPT) with house dust mite (HDM) were performed on all patients. Subjects also documented changes in rhinitis symptoms before and after NPT. Seventy-four patients with nasal hyper-reactivity and 80 patients with subclinical allergy were excluded. AR was diagnosed in 69 (46.0%) patients, NAR in 75 (50.0%) patients, and LAR to HDM in 6 (4.0%) patients. The average medication score and disease duration of each group were 14.5 points and 77.6 months in AR, 12.1 point and 51.1 months in NAR, and 17.7 point and 106.0 months in LAR, respectively. There were no significant differences in the baseline nasal symptom score of the three groups. However, after NPT with HDM, the score of rhinitis, itching, and obstructive were 4.83 +/- 1.47 vs. 1.95 +/- 2.53, 3.00 +/- 2.10 vs. 1.45 +/- 2.06, and 5.50 +/- 1.38 vs. 2.57 +/- 2.84 in LAR and NAR, respectively (p<0.05). LAR patients had longer duration of disease and tended to be older and have higher medication score than other rhinitis patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available