Trends in Specific Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: A Survey of Chinese ENT Specialists.
10.4168/aair.2014.6.4.296
- Author:
Han ZHOU
1
;
Qi Lei TAO
;
Jun Min WEI
;
Geng XU
;
Lei CHENG
Author Information
1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China. jspent@126.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Allergic rhinitis;
specific immunotherapy;
data collection;
Chinese otolaryngologists
- MeSH:
Asian Continental Ancestry Group*;
Asthma;
China;
Cross-Sectional Studies;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Education, Medical, Continuing;
Humans;
Immunotherapy*;
Nose;
Pyroglyphidae;
Rhinitis*;
Specialization*;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research
2014;6(4):296-303
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is a suitable but uncommon treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR) in China. The current understanding and attitude of Chinese ENT (ear, nose, and throat) specialists in regards to SIT is unclear. This study investigates current trends in the awareness and application status of SIT among Chinese ENT specialists. METHODS: We performed a nationwide, cross-sectional survey with a specially designed questionnaire given to 800 ENT specialists in China. A member of the trained research group conducted face-to-face interviews with each respondent. RESULTS: Most of the respondents considered AR (96.0%) and allergic asthma (96.0%) the most suitable indications for SIT. Of all respondents, 77.0% recommended the application of SIT as early as possible; in addition, SIT was considered 'relatively controllable and safe' by most respondents (80.6%). The highest allergen-positive rate in AR was associated with house dust mite (47.7%) and obvious differences existed among geographical regions. Conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy was the most highly recommended treatment option (96.2%). 'The high cost of SIT' (86.6%) and 'lack of patient knowledge of SIT' (85.2%) were probably the main reasons for the lower clinical use of SIT in China. CONCLUSIONS: Most cases showed that the opinions of Chinese ENT specialists appeared to be in agreement with recent SIT progress and international guidelines; however, many areas still need to enhance the standardization and use of SIT in China. Clinical guidelines for SIT require improvement; in addition, Chinese ENT specialists need continuing medical education on SIT.
