4.4 Article

The economic impact of allergic rhinitis and current guidelines for treatment

Journal

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 106, Issue 2, Pages S12-S16

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2010.10.014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Alcon
  2. Amgen
  3. Alexza
  4. Astellas
  5. AstraZeneca
  6. Boehringer Ingelheim
  7. Capnia
  8. Genentech
  9. GlaxoSmithKline
  10. MAP Pharmaceuticals
  11. Meda
  12. Merck
  13. Novartis
  14. Sanoti-Aventis
  15. Schering-Plough
  16. Sepracor
  17. Teva
  18. Astra-Zeneca
  19. Meda Pharmaceuticals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe the economic burden of allergic rhinitis treatment and current guidelines for treatment. Data Sources: Review articles and original research were retrieved from MEDLINE, OVID, Pub Med (1950-November 2009), personal files of articles, and bibliographies of located articles that addressed the topic of interest. Study Selection: Articles were selected for their relevance to the burden of allergic rhinitis and current guidelines for treatment. Publications included reviews, treatment guidelines, and clinical studies. Results: Despite the common symptoms of allergic rhinitis, its impact on patient quality of life, and the huge cost to society and individuals of treatment, including pharmacotherapy, many patients do not adhere to their medication regimens because the medications do not adequately address their symptoms or are otherwise problematic for them to use. Conclusions: The economic impact of allergic rhinitis is substantial; the total direct medical cost of allergic rhinitis is approximately $3.4 billion, with almost half of this cost attributable to prescription medications. Multiple treatment options are available, and these were reviewed to provide an update on effectiveness and adverse effects that may affect patient adherence. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;106:S12-S16.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available