BackgroundSublingual immunotherapy has been proven as a well-tolerated and effective treatment for allergic rhinitis. Within this type of treatment, GRAZAX® is the most documented product in terms of safety and efficacy. The objective of this study was to identify the patients’ expectations and level of treatment satisfaction, as well as the clinical management of patients with moderate/severe allergic rhinoconjunctivitis treated with GRAZAX®.MethodsThis was a non-interventional, observational, multi-centre, open-label study involving a total of 131 adult patients aged 18–66 years with confirmed diagnosis of grass-allergy and initiated treatment with GRAZAX® between June 2010 and April 2011.ResultsIn the pollen season after starting treatment, 56.6% of patients stated that their symptoms were much less/less intense, 86% needed less symptomatic medication for control of their symptoms, and 74.4% manifested to have improved (quite/a lot) as regards their allergic disease since treatment was initiated as compared with previous grass pollen season. The patient satisfaction with GRAZAX® was measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) between 0 (minimum satisfaction) and 100 (maximum satisfaction) comprising five different items: effectiveness, tolerability, cost, convenience and overall satisfaction. The results obtained for each item were [mean (SD)]: 74.7 (18.1), 70.3 (36.1), 39.3 (25.8), 86.2 (12.6), 78.4 (15.8) respectively. The patient’s level of satisfaction is highly influenced, especially in terms of assessment of effectiveness, tolerability and convenience, by the information provided by the specialist.ConclusionsIn summary, it can be concluded that improved communication leads to increased patient knowledge, greater patient compliance, and increased patient satisfaction.

No abstract

Aim: Assessment of safety, tolerability and changes in global clinical impression with an multiallergen immunotherapy treatment without dilutional effect in polyallergic patients. Patients & methods: This observational prospective study included patients with allergic rhinitis-rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma between 5 and 60 years old receiving immunotherapy treatment with a mixture of two allergenic sources. All adverse events were recorded. Global clinical impression, tolerability subjective assessment and satisfaction were also assessed. Results: 130 patients were analyzed. Nine clinically relevant local adverse reactions were reported in six patients (4.6%). Six systemic reactions (grades 0–I) occurred in four patients (3.1%). Patients improved significantly in their global clinical impression. Good tolerability subjective assessment and satisfaction values were also observed. Conclusion: This multiallergen immunotherapy treatment without dilutional effect can be considered as a potential therapeutic alternative for polyallergic patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.