4.6 Article

Prevalence, classification and perception of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis in Belgium

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 61, 期 6, 页码 693-698

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01054.x

关键词

allergic rhinitis; ARIA classification; consultation; co-morbidity; non-allergic rhinitis; prevalance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and noninfectious, nonallergic rhinitis (NINA) are common disorders, which may prompt patients to seek medical help. Methods: We performed a survey in a representative sample of the Belgian population (n = 4959) with an overall prevalence of self-declared recent rhinitis symptoms of 39.3%. Detailed information on patients having experienced nasal symptoms over the past year was then obtained from a random sample of respondents (n = 743). Results: The adjusted prevalence was 29.8% for AR and 9.6% for NINA, respectively. According to the ARIA classification, there was significantly more 'persistent' symptomatology in the AR group (40.8%) than in NINA (23.5%) (P < 0.001), and more 'moderate/severe' symptom intensity in AR (75.4%) than in NINA (53.1%) (P < 0.001). Allergic rhinitis patients suffered from a greater number of symptoms than NINA patients (P < 0.001). Asthma, skin and food allergy as co-morbidities were all found to be significantly more prevalent in the AR vs the NINA group (P < 0.05 for all). The percentage of consulting patients (total: 66.8%), who subjectively perceived their rhinitis as moderate/severe, was 94.0%, whereas 75.6% of these patients were classified accordingly based on ARIA criteria. Conclusions: We found a high prevalence of self-declared rhinitis symptoms in the Belgian population, AR being about three times more prevalent than NINA. In addition, AR patients suffered from a greater number of symptoms and displayed a more 'persistent' and 'moderate-severe' ARIA profile than NINA. About 75% of patients seeking medical help suffer from 'moderate to severe' forms of rhinitis.

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