患者管理方式对变应性鼻炎舌下含服粉尘螨滴剂疗效的影响

doi:10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2018.044

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的分析不同管理方式对接受舌下含服粉尘螨滴剂治疗(SLIT)的变应性鼻炎患者治疗1年后的依从性和疗效的影响,以探寻一种较好的患者管理方法确保患者完成标准疗程及获得更好的疗效。方法 180例接受舌下含服粉尘螨滴剂治疗的变应性鼻炎患者随机分为自媒体管理组(A组 90 例)和电话管理组(B组 90例)。A组建立医患微信和(或)QQ群,并成立由课题组专职医生任组长的自媒体管理小组,制订每个月的健康教育计划、每周向群内发送3次以上SLIT相关知识、及时评估患者报告结果。B组进行现场示范和教育,治疗开始后每3个月电话随访一次并进行相应的指导教育。统计分析治疗1年后两组的依从性及疗效情况。结果治疗1年内,A组脱落率为13.3%(12/90),B组脱落率为32.2%(29/90),两组间差异有统计学意义(χ2=9.128,P=0.003)。A、B两组组内比较,治疗前后各症状评分差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A、B两组组间比较,治疗前各症状评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),治疗后各症状评分差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A组显效15 例(16.67%),好转49例(54.44%),无效26 例(28.89%),总有效率为71.11%。B组显效13 例(14.44%),好转26例(28.89%),无效51 例(56.67%),总有效率为43.33%。结论自媒体管理有助于提高AR患者接受舌下含服粉尘螨滴剂治疗的依从性和疗效,特别是在长期治疗中更有优势。

关键词: 依从性, 患者管理, 自媒体, 变应性鼻炎, 舌下免疫治疗, 疗效

Abstract: Objective To analyze the influence of different patient management methods on the clinical effect and compliance to treatment with sublingual dermatophagoides farinae drops in patients with allergic rhinitis(AR). Methods One hundred and eighty patients with AR were randomly divided into a We-Media management Group(Group A, 90 patients)and a telephone management group(Group B, 90 patients). All patients were treated with sublingual immunotherapy(SLIT). In Group A, doctor-patient WeChat and/or QQ groups were formed. The doctor in charge acted as group leader, prepared monthly plans, sent to the patients SLIT-related information more than 3 times a week, and assessed patient reported outcome. In Group B, the patients were provided with on-the-spot demonstration and explanation and were followed up by telephone once every 3 month. We statistically analyzed dropout rates and the curative effect in the two groups at 1 year. Results The dropout rate in groups A and B was 13.3%(12/90)and 32.2%(29/90), respectively and the difference was statistically significant(χ2=9.128,P=0.003). The symptom scores before and after treatment were significantly different in both groups(P<0.05). There was no significant difference between Groups A and B before treatment(P>0.05), while the difference in the score of each symptom between the groups after treatment was significant(P<0.05). In Group A, the results were markedly effective in 15 patients(16.67%), effective in 49(54.44%), and ineffective in 26(28.89%), with a general effective rate of 71.11%(64/90). In Group B, the results were markedly effective in 13 patients(14.44%), effective in 26(28.89%), and ineffective in 51(56.67%), with a general effective rate of 43.33%(39/90). Conclusion The clinical effect and treatment compliance can be improved in patients with AR receiving SLIT by We-Media management.We-Media management is more advantageous especially in the long-term.

Key words: Allergic rhinitis, Sublingual immunotherapy, Patient management, We-Media, Clinical effect, Compliance

中图分类号:

R765.4

吴湘萍. 患者管理方式对变应性鼻炎舌下含服粉尘螨滴剂疗效的影响[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(3): 68-72.

WU Xiangping. Influence of patient management on the clinical effect of sublingual dermatophagoides farinae drops in patients[J]. JOURNAL OF SHANDONG UNIVERSITY (OTOLARYNGOLOGY AND OPHTHALMOLOGY), 2018, 32(3): 68-72.

参考文献

[1] 中华医学会耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学分会鼻科学组, 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志编辑委员会鼻科组. 变应性鼻炎诊断和治疗指南(2015 年,天津)[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2016, 51(1):6-24.
[2] 邱前辉. 变应性鼻炎免疫治疗的现状和未来[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2017, 31(1):9-12. QIU Qianhui. Current status and future of immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis[J]. J Clin Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2017, 31(1):9-12.
[3] Roxbury CR, Lin SY. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma[J]. Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 2017, 50(6):1111-1119.
[4] 程雷. 特异性免疫治疗是变应性鼻炎的一线疗法[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2016, 30(4):1-2. CHENG Lei. Allergen-specific immunotherapy as the first-line treatment for allergic rhinitis[J]. J Otolaryngol Ophthalmol Shandong Univ, 2016, 30(4):1-2.
[5] Cox LS. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: is 2-year treatment sufficient for long-term benefit?[J]. JAMA, 2017, 317(6):591-593.
[6] Schäfer U, Kienle-Gogolok A, Hadler M, et al. Treatment satisfaction during sublingual immunotherapy with a five-grass pollen tablet for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a prospective, non-interventional study[J]. Drugs Real World Outcomes, 2017, 4(2):109-117.
[7] Edwards TS, Wise SK. Clinical Applications of Sublingual Immunotherapy[J]. Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 2017, 50(6):1121-1134.
[8] 韩亮, 尤权杰, 李志, 等. 舌下免疫治疗变应性鼻炎满2年终止1年的疗效分析[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2017, 52(7):497-500. HAN Liang, YOU Quanjie, LI Zhi, et al. Evaluation of efficacy of 1 year after completing the 2-year specific sublingual immunotherapy treatment course in allergic rhinitis[J]. Chin J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2017, 52(7):497-500.
[9] Egert-Schmidt A, Martin E, Mueller J, et al. Patients' compliance towards high -dose hypoallergenic and unmodified SCIT treatment schedules is superior to sublingual immunotherapy[J]. Allergy, 2011, 66(Suppl 94): 628-629.
[10] Wang T, Li Y, Wang F, et al. Nonadherence to sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: a real-life analysis[J]. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol, 2017, 7(4):389-392.
[11] 崔珑, 王智楠, 徐忠强. 电话随访对粉尘螨滴剂舌下脱敏治疗变应性鼻炎依从性的评价[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2011, 25(8):364-366. CUI Long, WANG Zhinan, XU Zhiqiang. The analyse of telephone follow-up affecting the compliance of sublingual desensitization treatment to allergic rhinitis patients[J]. J Clin Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2011, 25(8):364-366.
[12] 张严文, 程雷. 舌下免疫治疗的临床现状及问题[J]. 中国中西医结合耳鼻咽喉科杂志, 2017, 25(3):161-163, 173.
[13] Marogna M, Spadolini I, Massolo A, et al. Long-lasting effects of sublingual immunotherapy according to its duration: a 15-year prospective study [J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2010, 126(5):969-975.

相关文章 15

[1]	王坛,武珂,李连庆,宫丽丽. 皮下免疫治疗注射后出现全身不良反应的伴发因素及处理[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(5): 71-74.
[2]	孟立新,李健,韦善文. 鼓膜微管置入术治疗中耳不张76例临床分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(5): 61-65.
[3]	卢汉桂,林歆胜,姚丹勉,魏永新,李创伟. 变应性鼻炎大鼠IL-35的表达及对辅助性T细胞免疫调节的影响[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(5): 66-70.
[4]	浦洪波,杜晓东. 无锡地区2 000例变应性鼻炎变应原检测结果分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(4): 105-107.
[5]	陈鸣,俞雪飞. 浅谈伴有变应性鼻炎的慢性鼻窦炎的治疗[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(3): 18-22.
[6]	李松,王宗贵,杨景朴,张竹萍. 鼻内镜下翼管神经切断术进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(1): 72-76.
[7]	郝艳,李栋才,蓝建平. CO₂激光显微手术与传统显微手术切除声带息肉疗效比较[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(6): 68-70.
[8]	鞠骏,李进让,邹世桢,贾曼玉. 创伤后良性阵发性位置性眩晕的临床特点及近期疗效研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(5): 57-61.
[9]	周学义,李一鸣,王美菊,张苑苑,张历浊. 25+微创玻璃体视网膜手术治疗孔源性视网膜脱离的临床观察[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(5): 92-94.
[10]	郅莉莉,宋道亮. 嗜酸性粒细胞及IL5在上颌窦后鼻孔息肉与鼻息肉中表达的差异[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(4): 43-46.
[11]	张晓莉,于泓,韩冬梅,杨瑞民,戚伟. 泪道激光联合引流管植入治疗泪道阻塞的临床观察[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(4): 84-86.
[12]	万文锦,王文,程雷. 尘螨变应性鼻炎皮下免疫治疗与舌下免疫治疗的荟萃分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(4): 103-108.
[13]	朱新华. 变应性鼻炎冲击免疫治疗的临床应用[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(3): 13-17.
[14]	刘怀涛,马瑞霞,程雷. 难治性变应性鼻炎的外科治疗[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(3): 18-21.
[15]	关凯,李丽莎. 鼻腔冲洗在变应性鼻炎防治中的应用[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(3): 22-27.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed