Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical records of 157 patients received AIT, and compared the clinical characteristics between conventional (CIT) and rush immunotherapy (RIT). A total of 56 were performed a questionnaire survey.
Results: Of 157 patients, 108 (68.8%) were treated with CIT, and 49 (31.2%) with RIT. There were no significant differences in allergic diseases, allergens in immunotherapy, and the frequency of systemic adverse reactions during build-up phase. The rate of missing patients was higher in CIT than RIT (18.5% vs 10.2%). Patients initiation with AIT was mainly according to physician recommendation (76.3% for CIT vs 55.6% for RIT). Patients with RIT had personal insurance more and showed better treatment satisfaction than those with CIT. Concern about adverse events was the main reason for start CIT, while frequent hospital visits for start RIT.
Conclusions: A majority patients initiated AIT according to physician recommendation and showed good treatment satisfaction. RIT may give better clinical outcomes than CIT.