Volume 63, Issue 8 pp. 1008-1014

Physician and patient survey of allergic rhinitis in France: perceptions on prevalence, severity of symptoms, care management and specific immunotherapy

P. Demoly

P. Demoly

Unité d’Exploration des Allergies, INSERM U657 Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier

Search for more papers by this author
A. Didier

A. Didier

Service de Pneumologie et d’Allergologie, Hôpital Larrey, Toulouse

Search for more papers by this author
P. Mathelier-Fusade

P. Mathelier-Fusade

62 Av de la Grande Armée, Paris

Search for more papers by this author
M. Drouet

M. Drouet

Unité d’Allergologie Générale, CHU Angers

Search for more papers by this author
M. David

M. David

Laboratoire Stallergènes, Antony

Search for more papers by this author
G. Bonnelye

G. Bonnelye

TNS Healthcare, Montrouge

Search for more papers by this author
J. de Blic

J. de Blic

Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Necker, Paris

Search for more papers by this author
J. M. Klossek

J. M. Klossek

CHU Hôpital Jean Bernard, Poitiers, France

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 08 July 2008
Citations: 17
Dr P. Demoly
Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve
Clinique des Maladies Respiratoires
371, Avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud
34295 Montpellier Cedex 5
France

Abstract

Background: Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only aetiological treatment used in allergic rhinitis (AR). A telephone survey of patients and physicians in France was carried out to understand better the real and perceived advantages and inconveniences of this therapeutic approach.

Methods: A cohort of 453 individuals with AR was selected using the Score For Allergic Rhinitis questionnaire. The survey evaluated the level of understanding of allergic rhinitis and its management, including both pharmacotherapy and SIT. A parallel survey was conducted with 400 general practitioners, allergists and nonallergist specialists.

Results: Approximately 50% of patients had heard about SIT as a therapeutic option. Of these, 56% had a positive view of SIT and 14% a negative image. A majority of patients and physicians with a positive opinion associated SIT with improved well-being and quality of life, while those with a negative opinion considered it to be a long and inconvenient treatment, with uncertain results. Over 50% of patients who had been offered SIT had accepted it and approximately 60% of these were satisfied with it. The future availability of SIT as sublingual tablets was perceived positively by both patients and physicians.

Conclusions: Many patients with AR are unaware of their pathology and few seek help from health professionals. When patients take medication, they are generally satisfied with their treatment, even if it is only symptomatic. Patients and physicians see the notion of definitive recovery as the main benefit of SIT, whereas the main disadvantage is the duration of treatment.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.