4.3 Article

Epidemiology of allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen or house-dust mites in Spain

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY & ALLERGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 E123-E128

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3599

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stallergenes Iberica S.A.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although the prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) is increasing, relatively little is known about patient characteristics in Spain. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical profile and therapeutic strategies in patients attending Spanish specialists for AR caused by grass pollen or house-dust mites (HDMs). Methods: This was a multicenter cross-sectional epidemiological study of consecutive patients aged >= 5 years with confirmed diagnosis of AR caused by grass pollen or HDMs attending allergy specialists throughout Spain. Demographic and clinical data and information on treatment were collected. Results: Data from 1043 patients were analyzed (524 with grass pollen allergy and 519 with HDM allergy; mean age, 27.1 years). Three-quarters had persistent AR as per the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) definition, with disease duration of >2 years in 94.3% of those with pollen allergy and 85.5% of those with HDM allergy. Approximately 38% had concurrent asthma. Over one-half of the patients were considered to have gotten worse since the first onset of symptoms. In total, 51.5% did not achieve good disease control with pharmacotherapy and 47.7% were treated with immunotherapy (52.2% of HDM allergic patients and 43.2% of grass pollen-allergic patients). Conclusion: The duration of AR in patients attended for the first time by specialists is long and, in general, the disease does not improve over time and is often not well controlled with pharmacologic interventions. Less than one-half of patients receive allergen-specific immunotherapy that is more often prescribed in HDM allergy. (Am J Rhinol Allergy 25, e123-e128, 2011; doi: 10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3599)

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

4.3
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