4.6 Article

Chronic urticaria in Chinese population: a hospital-based multicenter epidemiological study

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 359-364

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.12338

关键词

epidemiology; urticaria

资金

  1. National Science Found of China [81271754, 81072447]
  2. Clinical Research Found of Third Military Medical University [2010XLC11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe epidemiologic profiles of chronic urticaria (CU) vary considerably among regions, and few such data are available from China. MethodsWe performed a multicenter open questionnaire investigation about the clinical and laboratory features of CU, defined as recurrent wheals with/without angioedema lasting for 6weeks, among 3027 patients. ResultsFemale preponderance was observed (female/male ratio, 1.46:1). The mean age at diagnosis was 34.713.8years, and the mean disease duration was 18.5 +/- 46.1months (range, 1.5-127months). Patients were classified as having chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU, 61.0% of patients), physical urticaria (PU, 26.2%), or other urticaria types (OU, 2.3%). Nocturnal attacks were reported by 60% of cases. The Urticaria Activity Score (UAS) in patients with CSU was 3.8 +/- 1.4. The mean Dermatology Life Quality Index was 7.3 +/- 3.4 (range 0-30). Induction or exacerbation of wheals with alcohol drinking was reported by 55.7% of patients. Chronic hepatitis B was less prevalent in our CU patients compared with the general Chinese population (2.7% vs 7%). Positive autologous serum skin tests (ASSTs) were observed in 66.9% of patients. Patients with positive ASST had higher UAS, greater angioedema frequencies, longer disease durations, and poorer QoL compared with patients with negative ASST (P<0.05). ConclusionIn this Chinese population, CU usually affected youth, and CSU was the most common subtype. Autoreactivity and alcohol consumption were the top two triggers for CU, whereas latent infectious and chronic inflammatory diseases were not as common as in previous reports.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据