International Variation in Severe Exacerbation Rates in Patients With Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Exacerbation frequency strongly influences treatment choices in patients with severe asthma. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the extent of the variability of exacerbations rate across countries and its implications in disease management? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrieved data from the International Severe Asthma Registry, an international observational cohort of patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe asthma. We identified patients ≥ 18 years of age who did not initiate any biologics prior to baseline visit. A severe exacerbation was defined as the use of oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or asthma-related hospitalization/ED visit. A series of negative binomial models were applied to estimate country-specific severe exacerbation rates during 365 days of follow-up, starting from a naïve model with country as the only variable to an adjusted model with country as a random-effect term and patient and disease characteristics as independent variables. RESULTS: The final sample included 7,510 patients from 17 countries (56% from the United States), contributing to 1,939 severe exacerbations (0.27/person-year). There was large between-country variation in observed severe exacerbation rate (minimum, 0.04 [Argentina]; maximum, 0.88 [Saudi Arabia]; interquartile range, 0.13-0.54), which remained substantial after adjusting for patient characteristics and sampling variability (interquartile range, 0.16-0.39). INTERPRETATION: Individuals with similar patient characteristics but coming from different jurisdictions have varied severe exacerbation risks, even after controlling for patient and disease characteristics. This suggests unknown patient factors or system-level variations at play. Disease management guidelines should recognize such between-country variability. Risk prediction models that are calibrated for each jurisdiction will be needed to optimize treatment strategies

Work productivity in rhinitis using cell phones:The MASK pilot study

Allergic rhinitis often impairs social life and performance. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to use cell phone data to assess the impact on work productivity of uncontrolled rhinitis assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, Google Play Store and Apple App Store) collects data from daily visual analogue scales (VAS) for overall allergic symptoms (VAS-global measured), nasal (VAS-nasal), ocular (VAS-ocular) and asthma symptoms (VAS-asthma) as well as work (VAS-work). A combined nasal-ocular score is calculated. The Allergy Diary is available in 21 countries. The app includes the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergic Specific Questionnaire (WPAI: AS) in six EU countries. All consecutive users who completed the VAS-work from 1 June to 31 October 2016 were included in the study. A total of 1136 users filled in 5818 days of VAS-work. Symptoms of allergic rhinitis were controlled (VAS-global <20) in approximately 60% of the days. In users with uncontrolled rhinitis, approximately 90% had some work impairment and over 50% had severe work impairment (VAS-work >50). There was a significant correlation between VAS-global calculated and VAS-work (Rho=0.83, P <0.00001, Spearman's rank test). In 144 users, there was a significant correlation between VAS-work and WPAI: AS (Rho=0.53, P <0.0001). This pilot study provides not only proof-of-concept data on the work impairment collected with the app but also data on the app itself, especially the distribution of responses for the VAS. This supports the interpretation that persons with rhinitis report both the presence and the absence of symptom

ARIA 2016: Care pathways implementing emerging technologies for predictive medicine in rhinitis and asthma across the life cycle

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative commenced during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999. The initial goals were (1) to propose a new allergic rhinitis classification, (2) to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and (3) to develop guidelines with all stakeholders that could be used globally for all countries and populations. ARIA—disseminated and implemented in over 70 countries globally—is now focusing on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK [MACVIA (Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif)-ARIA Sentinel NetworK] uses mobile technology to develop care pathways for the management of rhinitis and asthma by a multi-disciplinary group and by patients themselves. An app (Android and iOS) is available in 20 countries and 15 languages. It uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom control and work productivity as well as a clinical decision support system. It is associated with an inter-operable tablet for physicians and other health care professionals. The scaling up strategy uses the recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p &lt; 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice

Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of daily monitoring visual analog scales in MASK-air®

Background: MASK-air® is an app that supports allergic rhinitis patients in disease control. Users register daily allergy symptoms and their impact on activities using visual analog scales (VASs). We aimed to assess the concurrent validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these daily VASs. Methods: Daily monitoring VAS data were assessed in MASK-air® users with allergic rhinitis. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating daily VAS values with those of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) VAS, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) score, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergic Specific (WPAI-AS) Questionnaire (work and activity impairment scores). Intra-rater reliability was assessed in users providing multiple daily VASs within the same day. Test–retest reliability was tested in clinically stable users, as defined by the EQ-5D VAS, CARAT, or “VAS Work” (i.e., VAS assessing the impact of allergy on work). Responsiveness was determined in users with two consecutive measurements of EQ-5D-VAS or “VAS Work” indicating clinical change. Results: A total of 17,780 MASK-air® users, with 317,176 VAS days, were assessed. Concurrent validity was moderate–high (Spearman correlation coefficient range: 0.437–0.716). Intra-rater reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged between 0.870 (VAS assessing global allergy symptoms) and 0.937 (VAS assessing allergy symptoms on sleep). Test–retest reliability ICCs ranged between 0.604 and 0.878—“VAS Work” and “VAS asthma” presented the highest ICCs. Moderate/large responsiveness effect sizes were observed—the sleep VAS was associated with lower responsiveness, while the global allergy symptoms VAS demonstrated higher responsiveness. Conclusion: In MASK-air®, daily monitoring VASs have high intra-rater reliability and moderate–high validity, reliability, and responsiveness, pointing to a reliable measure of symptom loads

Treatment of allergic rhinitis during and outside the pollen season using mobile technology. A MASK study

Background: The analysis of mobile health (mHealth) data has generated innovative insights into improving allergic rhinitis control, but additive information is needed. A cross-sectional real-world observational study was undertaken in 17 European countries during and outside the estimated pollen season. The aim was to collect novel information including the phenotypic characteristics of the users. Methods: The Allergy Diary–MASK-air–mobile phone app, freely available via Google Play and App, was used to collect the data of daily visual analogue scales (VASs) for overall allergic symptoms and medication use. Fluticasone Furoate (FF), Mometasone Furoate (MF), Azelastine Fluticasone Proprionate combination (MPAzeFlu) and eight oral H1-antihistamines were studied. Phenotypic characteristics were recorded at entry. The ARIA severity score was derived from entry data. This was an a priori planned analysis. Results: 9037 users filled in 70,286 days of VAS in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The ARIA severity score was lower outside than during the pollen season. Severity was similar for all treatment groups during the pollen season, and lower in the MPAzeFlu group outside the pollen season. Days with MPAzeFlu had lower VAS levels and a higher frequency of monotherapy than the other treatments during the season. Outside the season, days with MPAzeFlu also had a higher frequency of monotherapy. The number of reported days was significantly higher with MPAzeFlu during and outside the season than with MF, FF or oral H1-antihistamines. Conclusions: This study shows that the overall efficacy of treatments is similar during and outside the pollen season and indicates that medications are similarly effective during the year

Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold: An ARIA-EAACI-GA2LEN consensus

Background: Although there are many asymptomatic patients, one of the problems of COVID-19 is early recognition of the disease. COVID-19 symptoms are polymorphic and may include upper respiratory symptoms. However, COVID-19 symptoms may be mistaken with the common cold or allergic rhinitis. An ARIA-EAACI study group attempted to differentiate upper respiratory symptoms between the three diseases. Methods: A modified Delphi process was used. The ARIA members who were seeing COVID-19 patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the upper airway symptoms of COVID-19, common cold and allergic rhinitis. Results: Among the 192 ARIA members who were invited to respond to the questionnaire, 89 responded and 87 questionnaires were analysed. The consensus was then reported. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the symptom intensity between the three diseases (p&nbsp;&lt;.001). Conclusions: This modified Delphi approach enabled the differentiation of upper respiratory symptoms between COVID-19, the common cold and allergic rhinitis. An electronic algorithm will be devised using the questionnaire