Mobile Technology in Allergic Rhinitis : Evolution in Management or Revolution in Health and Care?

Smart devices and Internet-based applications (apps) are largely used in allergic rhinitis and may help to address some unmet needs. However, these new tools need to first of all be tested for privacy rules, acceptability, usability, and cost-effectiveness. Second, they should be evaluated in the frame of the digital transformation of health, their impact on health care delivery, and health outcomes. This review (1) summarizes some existing mobile health apps for allergic rhinitis and reviews those in which testing has been published, (2) discusses apps that include risk factors of allergic rhinitis, (3) examines the impact of mobile health apps in phenotype discovery, (4) provides real-world evidence for care pathways, and finally (5) discusses mobile health tools enabling the digital transformation of health and care, empowering citizens, and building a healthier society. (C) 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & ImmunologyPeer reviewe

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis:a systematic overview of systematic reviews

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). To inform the development of recommendations, we sought to critically assess the systematic review evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for ARC. Methods: We undertook a systematic overview, which involved searching nine international biomedical databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively synthesized. Results: Our searches yielded a total of 5932 potentially eligible studies, from which 17 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Eight of these were judged to be of high, five moderate and three low quality. These reviews suggested that, in carefully selected patients, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy resulted in significant reductions in symptom scores and medication requirements. Serious adverse outcomes were rare for both SCIT and SLIT. Two systematic reviews reported some evidence of potential cost savings associated with use of SCIT and SLIT. Conclusions: We found moderate-to-strong evidence that SCIT and SLIT can, in appropriately selected patients, reduce symptoms and medication requirements in patients with ARC with reassuring safety data. This evidence does however need to be interpreted with caution, particularly given the heterogeneity in the populations, allergens and protocols studied. There is a lack of data on the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. We are now systematically reviewing all the primary studies, including recent evidence that has not been incorporated into the published systematic reviews

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis:protocol for a systematic review

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the Management of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.status: publishe

Development and validation of combined symptom-medication scores for allergic rhinitis*

Background Validated combined symptom-medication scores (CSMSs) are needed to investigate the effects of allergic rhinitis treatments. This study aimed to use real-life data from the MASK-air(R) app to generate and validate hypothesis- and data-driven CSMSs. Methods We used MASK-air(R) data to assess the concurrent validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness of one hypothesis-driven CSMS (modified CSMS: mCSMS), one mixed hypothesis- and data-driven score (mixed score), and several data-driven CSMSs. The latter were generated with MASK-air(R) data following cluster analysis and regression models or factor analysis. These CSMSs were compared with scales measuring (i) the impact of rhinitis on work productivity (visual analogue scale [VAS] of work of MASK-air(R), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Allergy Specific [WPAI-AS]), (ii) quality-of-life (EQ-5D VAS) and (iii) control of allergic diseases (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test [CARAT]). Results We assessed 317,176 days of MASK-air(R) use from 17,780 users aged 16-90 years, in 25 countries. The mCSMS and the factor analyses-based CSMSs displayed poorer validity and responsiveness compared to the remaining CSMSs. The latter displayed moderate-to-strong correlations with the tested comparators, high test-retest reliability and moderate-to-large responsiveness. Among data-driven CSMSs, a better performance was observed for cluster analyses-based CSMSs. High accuracy (capacity of discriminating different levels of rhinitis control) was observed for the latter (AUC-ROC = 0.904) and for the mixed CSMS (AUC-ROC = 0.820). Conclusion The mixed CSMS and the cluster-based CSMSs presented medium-high validity, reliability and accuracy, rendering them as candidates for primary endpoints in future rhinitis trials.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

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

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. In order to inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis METHODS: We searched 15 international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified 5932 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95%CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95%CI -0.49, -0.26) and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95%CI -0.69, -0.30) scores whilst on treatment that were robust to pre-specified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, this suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores. CONCLUSIONS: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis whilst on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for allergic rhinitis management : MASK e-CDSS

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) management has changed in recent years following the switch from the concept of disease severity to the concept of disease control, publication of the AR clinical decision support system (CDSS) and development of mobile health (m-health) tools for patients (eg Allergy Diary). The Allergy Diary Companion app for healthcare providers is currently being developed and will be launched in 2018. It incorporates the AR CDSS to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations, linking all key stakeholders in AR management. Objective: To produce an electronic version of the AR CDSS (e-CDSS) for incorporation into the Allergy Diary Companion, to describe the app interfaces used to collect information necessary to inform the e-CDSS and to summarize some key features of the Allergy Diary Companion. Methods: The steps involved in producing the e-CDSS and incorporating it into the Allergy Diary Companion were (a) generation of treatment management scenarios; (b) expert consensus on treatment recommendations; (c) generation of electronic decisional algorithms to describe all AR CDSS scenarios; (d) digitization of these algorithms to form the e-CDSS; and (e) embedding the e-CDSS into the app to permit easy user e-CDSS interfacing. Results: Key experts in the AR field agreed on the AR CDSS approach to AR management and on specific treatment recommendations provided by Allergy Diary Companion. Based on this consensus, decision processes were developed and programmed into the Allergy Diary Companion using Titanium Appcelerator (JavaScript) for IOS tablets. To our knowledge, this is the first time the development of any m-health tool has been described in this transparent and detailed way, providing confidence, not only in the app, but also in the provided management recommendations. Conclusion: The Allergy Diary Companion for providers provides guideline and expert-endorsed AR management recommendations. [MASK paper No 32].Peer reviewe

Real-world data using mHealth apps in rhinitis, rhinosinusitis and their multimorbidities

Digital health is an umbrella term which encompasses eHealth and benefits from areas such as advanced computer sciences. eHealth includes mHealth apps, which offer the potential to redesign aspects of healthcare delivery. The capacity of apps to collect large amounts of longitudinal, real-time, real-world data enables the progression of biomedical knowledge. Apps for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were searched for in the Google Play and Apple App stores, via an automatic market research tool recently developed using JavaScript. Over 1500 apps for allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were identified, some dealing with multimorbidity. However, only six apps for rhinitis (AirRater, AllergyMonitor, AllerSearch, Husteblume, MASK-air and Pollen App) and one for rhinosinusitis (Galenus Health) have so far published results in the scientific literature. These apps were reviewed for their validation, discovery of novel allergy phenotypes, optimisation of identifying the pollen season, novel approaches in diagnosis and management (pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy) as well as adherence to treatment. Published evidence demonstrates the potential of mobile health apps to advance in the characterisation, diagnosis and management of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis patients.Peer reviewe

Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold : An ARIA-EAACI-GA(2)LEN 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 < .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.Peer reviewe