Analysis of Allergen Immunotherapy Practice and Patients’ Knowledge and Attitude about Allergen Immunotherapy in a Single Tertiary Hospital in Korea

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only immune-modifying treatment for allergic disease. The clinical efficacy of AIT for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma is well documented. However, many factors including inconvenience, cost, side effects, and adherence influence the initiation and persistence with AIT. We sought to evaluate the AIT practice pattern and patients’ attitude and behavior about AIT.

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.