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

Morphometric analysis of renal arteries in patients with renal cell carcinoma

The aim of this study was to analyze morphometric parameters of renal arteries (longest diameter and tunica media thickness) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), to look into their relationship to tumor necrosis and to compare them with morphometric parameters recorded in a control group. We analyzed archival cases of RCC diagnosed in 2003 that also contained routinely sampled specimens of distal segments of renal artery. The control group consisted of specimens from both renal arteries obtained from 16 patients at routine autopsy during 2004–2005. Autopsy, as well as further histological analysis, did not disclose any malignant disease in the control group. Morphometric analysis of diameter and thickness of the renal artery tunica media was performed using Issa 3.1 software (Vamstek 2002, Zagreb, Croatia). The comparison of tunica media thickness showed that renal arteries from RCC cases were significantly thicker compared to distal parts of renal arteries in the control group (p=0.0002). Although renal artery samples from cases with necrotic tumor areas were thicker than those without tumor necrosis, the difference was not statistically significant. It is concluded that significantly thicker tunica media characterizes renal arteries in the group of patients with RCC when compared with the control group

Consensus statement on screening, diagnosis, classification and treatment of endemic (Balkan) nephropathy.

Currently used diagnostic criteria in different endemic (Balkan) nephropathy (EN) centers involve different combinations of parameters, various cut-off values and many of them are not in agreement with proposed international guidelines. Leaders of EN centers began to address these problems at scientific meetings, and this paper is the outgrowth of those discussions. The main aim is to provide recommendations for clinical work on current knowledge and expertise. This document is developed for use by general physicians, nephrologists, urologist, public health experts and epidemiologist, and it is hoped that it will be adopted by responsible institutions in countries harboring EN. National medical providers should cover costs of screening and diagnostic procedures and treatment of EN patients with or without upper urothelial cancers

Concepts for the development of person-centred, digitally-enabled, Artificial Intelligence-assisted ARIA care pathways (ARIA 2024)

International audienceThe 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 life based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality and coordination, as well as quality of life, are important aims in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centred care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (i) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (ii) digitally-enabled person-centred care (1). It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. The paper includes (i) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a two-decade journey, (ii) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (iii) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (iv) from guidelines to digital care pathways, (v) embedding Planetary Health, (vi) novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (vi) embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (vii) the ARIA-EAACI strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (viii) Artificial Intelligence, (ix) the development of digitally-enabled ARIA Person-Centred Care and (x) the political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centred around the patient in order to make them more applicable and sustainable

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable