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

Stress factors and stress management interventions: the heuristic of “bottom up” an update from a systematic review

Organizations have increasingly sought to adopt innovative interventions to prevent stress-related issues. In the field of manufacturing, however, the effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear because a systematic and specific review of existing primary evidence has not been undertaken. The present systematic literature review sought to address the foregoing limitation in the literature by summarizing the main source of stress and effectiveness of stress management interventions as grounded in the context of manufacturing. Our review was limited to only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies and concerned employees from the manufacturing sector. Twenty-two studies on primary, secondary and tertiary interventions across four continents (Asia, Europe, USA and South America) were selected and analyzed in terms of stress factors, methodological properties and outcomes. Most of these were RCT studies (68% Vs 32%) with a majority of secondary interventions (N = 11, 50%), followed by primary (N = 5, 22%), tertiary (N = 3, 13%), and two (9%) mixed interventions. The main outcomes included an improvement of psychological wellbeing, decreased stress reactivity and an increment of general health. There was a predominance of interventions utilizing skills programs and/or cognitive-behavioral techniques. The main source of stress reported related to professional identity, organizational deficiencies, interpersonal conflicts, physical complaints and poor work environment. Taken together, the findings provide important theoretical and practical implications for advancing the study of stress factors and the use of stress management interventions in the workplace. The prerequisite for a successful intervention is to address the real problems experienced by professionals and help them to cope with their difficult situations. The strategy of “bottom-up” offers a potential means of enhancing employees’ health and well-being; however, the most effective means of implementing these interventions needs to be understood better

Behavioural Patterns in Allergic Rhinitis Medication in Europe: A Study Using MASK‐Air ® 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® 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 H1 -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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

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® app: those receiving sublingual AIT (SLIT), those receiving subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), and those receiving no AIT. Methods: We assessed the MASK-air® 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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Comparison of Rhinitis Treatments Using MASK-air ® Data and Considering the Minimal Important Difference

Background: Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., "real-world data"). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co-medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. Methods: We assessed the MASK-air® app data (May 2015-December 2020) by users self-reporting AR (16-90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co-medication. Results: We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co-medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine-fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine-fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine-fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co-medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71-0.80). Conclusion: Median VAS levels were higher in co-medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Consistent Trajectories of Rhinitis Control and Treatment in 16,177 Weeks: The MASK‐air® Longitudinal Study

Introduction: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. Methods: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. 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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Digitally‐Enabled, Patient‐Centred Care in Rhinitis and Asthma Multimorbidity: The ARIA‐MASK‐air ® Approach

MASK-air® , a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio