ArticleClinical and molecular allergy : CMA2021
Prescription rate and treatment patterns for allergic rhinitis from 2010 to 2018 in South Korea: a retrospective study.
Article in Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of antihistaminics in adults' patients with allergic rhinitis.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- The impact of COVID-19 on hay fever treatment in Japan: A retrospective cohort study based on the Japanese claims database.Clinical and translational allergy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere has been little investigation on how guidelines for allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment are applied in current clinical practice. We aimed to analyze prescription trends and patterns for AR treatment according to patient characteristics over a 9-year period in Korea.
methodsWe used cross-sectional data from the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service National Patient Sample from 2010 to 2018. We analyzed 1,719,194 patients with AR as the principal diagnosis. Prescription rates of antihistamines, steroids, and other drugs; combination prescriptions; and first-choice prescriptions were analyzed.
resultsThe prescription rate of first-generation antihistamines decreased over the years (2010: 29.13; 2018: 23.41). By contrast, the prescription rate of systemic steroids (2010: 23.60; 2018: 28.70), nasal steroids (2010: 9.70; 2018: 14.67), and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) (2010: 11.13; 2018: 26.56) increased. The prescription rate of steroids was lower in patients aged 0-5 years and ≥ 65 years than in other age groups and that of LTRAs was the highest in patients aged 0-5 years. The rate of combination prescribing antihistamines and nasal steroids increased (2010: 7.99; 2018: 12.09). The rate of first-choice prescriptions with antihistamines and nasal steroids also increased (2010: 4.72; 2018: 7.24).
conclusionsThe results confirmed a decrease in antihistamine prescriptions, especially with first-generation, and an increase in steroid and LTRA prescriptions in patients with AR in Korea. Regarding prescription patterns, steroids were increasingly prescribed in combination with antihistamines. However, the trend was opposite in the 0-5 years and ≥ 65 years groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.