Recommendations for asthma monitoring in children : A PeARL document endorsed by APAPARI, EAACI, INTERASMA, REG, and WAO

Peer reviewe

Behavioural patterns in allergic rhinitis medication in Europe : A study using MASK-air(R) real-world data

Background Co-medication is common among patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its dimension and patterns are unknown. This is particularly relevant since AR is understood differently across European countries, as reflected by rhinitis-related search patterns in Google Trends. This study aims to assess AR co-medication and its regional patterns in Europe, using real-world data. Methods We analysed 2015-2020 MASK-air(R) European data. We compared days under no medication, monotherapy and co-medication using the visual analogue scale (VAS) levels for overall allergic symptoms ('VAS Global Symptoms') and impact of AR on work. We assessed the monthly use of different medication schemes, performing separate analyses by region (defined geographically or by Google Trends patterns). We estimated the average number of different drugs reported per patient within 1 year. Results We analysed 222,024 days (13,122 users), including 63,887 days (28.8%) under monotherapy and 38,315 (17.3%) under co-medication. The median 'VAS Global Symptoms' was 7 for no medication days, 14 for monotherapy and 21 for co-medication (p < .001). Medication use peaked during the spring, with similar patterns across different European regions (defined geographically or by Google Trends). Oral H-1-antihistamines were the most common medication in single and co-medication. Each patient reported using an annual average of 2.7 drugs, with 80% reporting two or more. Conclusions Allergic rhinitis medication patterns are similar across European regions. One third of treatment days involved co-medication. These findings suggest that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms (irrespective of how they understand AR) and that co-medication use is driven by symptom severity.Peer reviewe

Allergen immunotherapy in MASK-air users in real-life : Results of a Bayesian mixed-effects model

Background Evidence regarding the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) on allergic rhinitis has been provided mostly by randomised controlled trials, with little data from real-life studies. Objective To compare the reported control of allergic rhinitis symptoms in three groups of users of the MASK-air(R) app: those receiving sublingual AIT (SLIT), those receiving subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), and those receiving no AIT. Methods We assessed the MASK-air(R) data of European users with self-reported grass pollen allergy, comparing the data reported by patients receiving SLIT, SCIT and no AIT. Outcome variables included the daily impact of allergy symptoms globally and on work (measured by visual analogue scales-VASs), and a combined symptom-medication score (CSMS). We applied Bayesian mixed-effects models, with clustering by patient, country and pollen season. Results We analysed a total of 42,756 days from 1,093 grass allergy patients, including 18,479 days of users under AIT. Compared to no AIT, SCIT was associated with similar VAS levels and CSMS. Compared to no AIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower values of VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 7.5 units out of 100; 95% credible interval [95%CrI] = -12.1;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 5.0; 95%CrI = -8.5;-1.5), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 3.7; 95%CrI = -9.3;2.2). When compared to SCIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 10.2; 95%CrI = -17.2;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 7.8; 95%CrI = -15.1;0.2), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 9.3; 95%CrI = -18.5;0.2). Conclusion In patients with grass pollen allergy, SLIT-tablet, when compared to no AIT and to SCIT, is associated with lower reported symptom severity. Future longitudinal studies following internationally-harmonised standards for performing and reporting real-world data in AIT are needed to better understand its 'real-world' effectiveness.Peer reviewe

Consistent trajectories of rhinitis control and treatment in 16,177 weeks : The MASK-air (R) longitudinal study

Introduction: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air (R), these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air (R) longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms.Methods: We analyzed MASK-air (R) data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results.Results: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age +/- SD = 39.1 +/- 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control.Conclusions: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms.[GRAPHICS].Peer reviewe

Patient‐centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA‐EAACI approach – ARIA‐EAACI Task Force Report

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/ or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of- life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Management of anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients.Peer reviewe

Concepts for the Development of Person-Centered, Digitally Enabled, Artificial Intelligence–Assisted ARIA Care Pathways (ARIA 2024)

Funding Information: This work has received funding from ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact of Asthma); CATALYSE (Climate Action To Advance HeaLthY Societies in Europe), the European Union\u2019s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 101057131; FRAUNHOFER Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology (ITMP), Immunology and Allergology, Berlin, Germany; University of Porto, Portugal; and MASK-air, which has been supported by EU grants (Impact of air Pollution on Asthma and Rhinitis [POLLAR] project of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology Health; Structural and Development Funds, R\u00E9gion Languedoc Roussillon and Provence-Alpes-C\u00F4te d\u2019Azur; Twinning, European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, DG Sant\u00E9 and DG Connect); educational grants from Mylan-Viatris, Allergologisk Laboratorium K\u00F8benhavn, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Stallerg\u00E8nes-Greer, and Noucor; and funding from Breathing Together Onlus Association (Associazione Respiriamo Insieme Onlus), Italy; Esp\u00EDritu Santo University, Samborond\u00F3n, Ecuador; Finnish Anti-Tuberculosis Association Foundation and Tampere Tuberculosis Foundation; GA 2 LEN; German Allergy Society AeDA (\u00C4rzteverband Deutscher Allergologen); IPOKRaTES (International Postgraduate Organization for Knowledge transfer, Research and Teaching Excellent Students) Lithuania Fund; Polish Society of Allergology (POLSKIE TOWARZYSTWO ALLERGOLOGICZNE); and University of Li\u00E8ge, Belgium. Funding Information: Conflicts of interest: J. Bousquet reports personal fees from Cipla, Menarini, Mylan, Novartis, Purina, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Noucor, other from KYomed-Innov, and other from Mask-air-SAS, outside the submitted work. M. Blaiss reports personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from ALK, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Prollergy, personal fees from Lanier Biotherapeutics, and nonfinancial support from Bryn Phama, outside the submitted work. J. Lity\u0144ska reports personal fees from Evidence Prime Sp. z o.o., outside the submitted work. T. Iinuma reports grants from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. P. Tantilipikorn reports grants from Abbott, other from GSK, and other from Sanofi Aventis, outside the submitted work. T. Haahtela reports personal fees from Orion Pharma, outside the submitted work. Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The AuthorsThe traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients’ resources and abilities to be experts in their own lives based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality, and coordination, as well as quality of life, is an important aim in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centered care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (1) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (2) digitally enabled, person-centered care.1 It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally enabled, patient-centered care. The paper includes (1) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a 2-decade journey, (2) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (3) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (4) From guidelines to digital care pathways, (5) Embedding Planetary Health, (6) Novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (7) Embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (8) The ARIA-EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (9) Artificial intelligence, (10) The development of digitally enabled, ARIA person-centered care, and (11) The political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centered around the patient to make them more applicable and sustainable.proofinpres

Rhinitis associated with asthma is distinct from rhinitis alone: TARIA‐MeDALL hypothesis

Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of “one-airway-one-disease,” coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the “Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis.” This review determined that the “one-airway-one-disease” concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme “allergic” (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Correlation between work impairment, scores of rhinitis severity and asthma using the MASK-air (R) App

Background In allergic rhinitis, a relevant outcome providing information on the effectiveness of interventions is needed. In MASK-air (Mobile Airways Sentinel Network), a visual analogue scale (VAS) for work is used as a relevant outcome. This study aimed to assess the performance of the work VAS work by comparing VAS work with other VAS measurements and symptom-medication scores obtained concurrently. Methods All consecutive MASK-air users in 23 countries from 1 June 2016 to 31 October 2018 were included (14 189 users; 205 904 days). Geolocalized users self-assessed daily symptom control using the touchscreen functionality on their smart phone to click on VAS scores (ranging from 0 to 100) for overall symptoms (global), nose, eyes, asthma and work. Two symptom-medication scores were used: the modified EAACI CSMS score and the MASK control score for rhinitis. To assess data quality, the intra-individual response variability (IRV) index was calculated. Results A strong correlation was observed between VAS work and other VAS. The highest levels for correlation with VAS work and variance explained in VAS work were found with VAS global, followed by VAS nose, eye and asthma. In comparison with VAS global, the mCSMS and MASK control score showed a lower correlation with VAS work. Results are unlikely to be explained by a low quality of data arising from repeated VAS measures. Conclusions VAS work correlates with other outcomes (VAS global, nose, eye and asthma) but less well with a symptom-medication score. VAS work should be considered as a potentially useful AR outcome in intervention studies.Peer reviewe