Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease worldwide. Various upper airway symptoms lower quality of life, and due to the recurrent symptoms, multiple treatments are usually attempted rather than one definitive treatment. There are alternatives to medical (medication-based) and nonmedical treatments. A guideline is needed to understand allergic rhinitis and develop an appropriate treatment plan. We have developed guidelines for medical treatment based on previous reports. The current guidelines herein are associated with the “KAAACI Evidence-Based Guidelines for Allergic Rhinitis in Korea, Part 1: Update in pharmacotherapy” in which we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the medical treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2 focuses on nonpharmacological management, including allergen-specific immunotherapy, subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy, nasal saline irrigation, environmental management strategies, companion animal management, and nasal turbinate surgery. The evidence to support the treatment efficacy, safety, and selection has been systematically reviewed. However, larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select rational non-medical therapeutic options for patients with allergic rhinitis.

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines for AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and a systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the development of socializing and emotional expressions through vocalizations and joint attention (JA) behaviors in Korean-speaking children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), compared to those with developmental delay (DD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Video samples were collected from 28 toddlers with ASD and 18 age-matched toddlers with DD, and vocalizations were each coded in detail for the purpose of this retrospective research. In addition to some statistical analysis, Computerized Language Analysis was conducted to obtain the final results. RESULTS: Although they produced a higher number of vocalizations than the DD group, the ASD group did not engage in emotional or social interactions with their caretakers, whereas the DD group did. The children with ASD used more atypical vocalizations and socially unengaged vocalizations than the children with DD did. JA using vocalizations in the ASD group, in particular, was largely dyadic, with triadic types occurring at a significantly lower frequency than those in the DD group. CONCLUSION: Results from this study indicate the importance of assessing early vocalizations in toddlers with ASD, suggesting that some common symptoms of ASD, such as lack of typical, emotional, and social functions in early vocalizations, could be used to develop screening and intervention programs related to ASD.
Autism Spectrum Disorder* ; Autistic Disorder* ; Child ; Child Behavior ; Communication Disorders ; Developmental Disabilities ; Humans ; Interpersonal Relations ; Joints ; Mass Screening ; Mother-Child Relations ; Retrospective Studies

OBJECTIVE: Patients are often transported within the hospital, especially in cases of critical illness for which computed tomography (CT) is performed. Since increased transport time increases the risks of complications, reducing transport time is important for patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of our newly invented device, the Easy Tube Arrange Device (ETAD), to reduce transport time for CT evaluation in cases of critical illness. METHODS: This prospective randomized control study included 60 volunteers. Each participant arranged five or six intravenous fluid lines, monitoring lines (noninvasive blood pressure, electrocardiography, central venous pressure, arterial catheter), and therapeutic equipment (O2 supply device, Foley catheter) on a Resusci Anne mannequin. We measured transport time for the CT evaluation by using conventional and ETAD method. RESULTS: The median transport time for CT evaluation was 488.50 seconds (95% confidence interval [CI], 462.75 to 514.75) and, 503.50 seconds (95% CI, 489.50 to 526.75) with 5 and 6 fluid lines using the conventional method and 364.50 seconds (95% CI, 335.00 to 388.75), and 363.50 seconds (95% CI, 331.75 to 377.75) with ETAD (all P < 0.001). The time differences were 131.50 (95% CI, 89.25 to 174.50) and 148.00 (95% CI, 116.00 to 177.75) (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The transport time for CT evaluation was reduced using the ETAD, which would be expected to reduce the complications that may occur during transport in cases of critical illness.
Blood Pressure ; Central Venous Pressure ; Critical Illness* ; Electrocardiography ; Humans ; Manikins ; Methods ; Patient Safety ; Prospective Studies ; Transportation ; Volunteers

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to increase the performance of the AIMS65 score in the prediction of outcomes in upper gastrointestinal bleeding by modifying the AIMS65 score. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively between January 2015 and June 2015. A total of 212 adult patients, who visited the emergency department with an upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage during this period were included for analysis. High risk patients were defined as follows: those who needed an endoscopic or surgical hemostasis, suffered rebleeding, hospitalized in an intensive care unit, and those who were deceased within 30 days or required a blood transfusion. The seven parameters of the modified AIMS65 score were as follows: Albumin levels, international normalized ratio (prothrombin time), altered mental status, systolic blood pressure, age>65 years, hemoglobin levels, and heart rate. RESULTS: The high-risk group was comprised of 163 patients, while the low risk group was comprised of 49 patients. The areas under the curve for AIMS65 and modified AIMS65 scores were 0.727 (95% confidence interval, 0.662-0.786) and 0.847 (95% confidence interval, 0.791-0.892), respectively, which were significantly different (p<0.001). The AIMS65 score had a sensitivity of 53.0% and a specificity of 78.5% at a score of 0. The modified AIMS65 score had a sensitivity of 22.4% and a specificity of 99.3% at a score of 0. For the modified AIMS65 score of 3 or lower, the sensitivity was 97.9% with a specificity of 21.4%. CONCLUSION: The modified AIMS65 score was effective in distinguishing between the low-risk group and the high-risk group among patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Adult ; Blood Pressure ; Blood Transfusion ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage ; Heart Rate ; Hemorrhage* ; Hemostasis, Surgical ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units ; International Normalized Ratio ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Triage