4.4 Article

Clinical Characteristics of Allergic Rhinitis According to Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma Guidelines

期刊

出版社

KOREAN SOC OTORHINOLARYNGOL
DOI: 10.3342/ceo.2008.1.4.196

关键词

ARIA; Allergic rhinitis; Asthma; Olfaction; Blood eosinophil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. The Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) guidelines were suggested for use to classify allergic rhinitis; (AR). However, few studies have been performed in Asians. The objective of this study is to identify the clinical characteristics of AR in Korean patients according to the ARIA guidelines. Methods: For the study, 610 patients who had been diagnosed with allergic rhinitis at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and 545 patients who had been diagnosed with allergic rhinitis at 3 local clinics were included. All the patients were categorized into 4 groups, such as the mild intermittent, mild persistent, moderate-severe intermittent and moderate-severe persistent groups. The patients were given a questionnaire on allergic rhinitis-related symptoms and they underwent blood tests, including the blood eosinophil count and the serum total IgE level. Results. The most prevalent type was the moderate-severe persistent group (34.7%), and the moderate-severe intermittent group (17.1%) was the rarest. There were significant differences among the 4 groups for olfaction (P<0.001), self-awareness of rhinitis (P=0.013), a previous history of AR (P<0.001), self-awareness of asthma (P=0.001) and allergic conjunctivitis (P<0.001). On the allergy laboratory tests, there was a significant difference between the groups for the eosinophi count (P=0.004). The number of blood eosinophil was more in the persistent groups than in the intermittent groups. Conclusion. According to the ARIA guidelines, the moderate-severe persistent group was the most prevalent for Korean patients. Blood eosinophilia and olfactory dysfunction were the most severe in the moderate-severe persistent group.

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

4.4
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