Concurrent validity, cut-offs and ability to change of patient-reported outcome measures for rhinitis and asthma in MASK-air®.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess a patient's health status at a particular point in time. They are essential in the development of person-centred care. This paper reviews studies performed on PROMs for assessing AR and asthma control, in particular VAS scales that are included in the app MASK-air® (Mobile Airways Sentinel networK) for asthma and rhinitis. VASs were initially developed on paper and pencil and tested for their criterion validity, cut-offs and responsiveness. Then, a multicentric, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised control trial (DB-PC-RCT) using an electronic VAS form was carried out. Finally, with the development of MASK-air® in 2015, previously validated VAS questions were adapted to the digital format and further methodologic evaluations were performed. VAS for asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, work and EQ-5D are included in the app. Additionally, two control-medication scores for allergic symptoms of asthma (e-DASTHMA) were validated for their criterion validity, cut-offs and responsiveness.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Atopic Dermatitis and Chronic Urticaria Are Underused in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated and standardized tools that complement physician evaluations and guide treatment decisions. They are crucial for monitoring atopic dermatitis (AD) and chronic urticaria (CU) in clinical practice, but there are unmet needs and knowledge gaps regarding their use in clinical practice. OBJECCTIVE: We investigated the global real-world use of AD and CU PROMs in allergology and dermatology clinics as well as their associated local and regional networks. METHODS: Across 72 specialized allergy and dermatology centers and their local and regional networks, 2,534 physicians in 73 countries completed a 53-item questionnaire on the use of PROMs for AD and CU. RESULTS: Of 2,534 physicians, 1,308 were aware of PROMs. Of these, 14% and 15% used PROMs for AD and CU, respectively. Half of physicians who use PROMs do so only rarely or sometimes. Use of AD and CU PROM is associated with being female, younger, and a dermatologist. The Patient-Oriented Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Index and Urticaria Activity Score were the most common PROMs for AD and CU, respectively. Monitoring disease control and activity are the main drivers of the use of PROMs. Time constraints were the primary obstacle to using PROMs, followed by the impression that patients dislike PROMs. Users of AD and CU PROM would like training in selecting the proper PROM. CONCLUSIONS: Although PROMs offer several benefits, their use in routine practice is suboptimal, and physicians perceive barriers to their use. It is essential to attain higher levels of PROM implementation in accordance with national and international standards.

Impairment of EQ-5D-5L Domains According to Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Control: A MASK-air Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: EQ-5D-5L (EuroQOL, 5 Domains, 5 Levels) is a widely used health-related quality-of-life instrument, comprising 5 domains. However, it is not known how each domain is impacted by rhinitis or asthma control. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between rhinitis or asthma control and the different EQ-5D-5L domains using data from the MASK-air mHealth app. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed data from all MASK-air users (2015-2021; 24 countries). For the levels of each EQ-5D-5L domain, we assessed rhinitis and asthma visual analog scales (VASs) and the combined symptom-medication score (CSMS). We built ordinal multivariable models assessing the adjusted association between VAS/CSMS values and the levels of each EQ-5D-5L domain. Finally, we compared EQ-5D-5L data from users with rhinitis and self-reported asthma with data from users with rhinitis alone. RESULTS: We assessed 5354 days from 3092 users. We observed an association between worse control of rhinitis or asthma (higher VASs and CSMS) and worse EQ-5D-5L levels. In multivariable models, all VASs and the CSMS were associated with higher levels of pain/discomfort and daily activities. For anxiety/depression, the association was mostly observed for rhinitis-related tools (VAS nose, VAS global, and CSMS), although the presence of self-reported asthma was also associated with worse anxiety/depression. Worse mobility ("walking around") was particularly associated with VAS asthma and with the presence of asthma. CONCLUSIONS: A worse rhinitis control and a worse asthma control are associated with higher EQ-5D-5L levels, particularly regarding pain/discomfort and activity impairment. Worse rhinitis control is associated with worse anxiety/depression, and poor asthma control with worse mobility.

Criteria to evaluate efficacy of biologics in asthma: a Global Asthma Association survey.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no universally accepted criteria to measure the response to biologics available as treatment for severe asthma. This survey aims to establish consensus criteria to use for the evaluation of response to biologics after 4 months of treatment. METHOD: Using Delphi methodology, a questionnaire including 10 items was validated by 13 international experts in asthma. The electronic survey circulated within the Interasma Scientific Network platform. For each item, five answers were proposed graduated from 'no importance' to 'very high importance' and by a score (A = 2 points; B = 4 points; C = 6 points; D = 8 points; E = 10 points). The final criteria were selected if the median score for the item was ≥7 and > 60% of responses according 'high importance' and 'very high importance'. All selected criteria were validated by the experts. RESULTS: Four criteria were identified: reduce daily systemic corticosteroids dose by ≥50%; decrease the number of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids by ≥50%; have no/minimal side effects; and obtain asthma control according validated questionnaires. The consensual decision was that ≥3 criteria define a good response to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: Specific criteria were defined by an international panel of experts and could be used as tool in clinical practice.

Aeroallergen immunotherapy associated with reduced risk of severe COVID-19 in 1095 allergic patients.

Introduction: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) brings along changes in the immune system, restoring dendritic cell function, reducing T2 inflammation and augmenting the regulatory cell activation. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, interferes with the immune system causing immune suppression during the first phase and over-activation in more advanced disease. We decided to explore the interaction of both in a real-world observational trial. Methods: We registered COVID-19 outcomes in patients with allergic disorders in Latin America, treated with and without AIT. The registry was conducted during the first 1.3 years of the pandemic, with most of the data collected before COVID-19 vaccination was concluded in most countries. Data collection was anonymous via a web-based instrument. Ten countries participated. Results: 630/1095 (57.6%) of the included patients received AIT. Compared to patients without AIT, those treated with AIT had a reduced risk ratio (RR) for COVID-19 lower respiratory symptoms (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.6703-0.9024; p = 0.001662) and need for oxygen therapy (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.4217-0.9992; p = 0.048). In adherent patients on maintenance sublingual immunotherapy/subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT/SCIT) the RR reduction was larger [RR = 0.6136 (95% CI 0.4623-0.8143; p < 0.001) and RR: 0.3495 (95% CI 0.1822-0.6701; p < 0.005), respectively]. SLIT was slightly more effective (NS). We excluded age, comorbidities, level of health care attendance, and type of allergic disorder as confounders, although asthma was related to a higher frequency of severe disease. When analyzing patients with allergic asthma (n = 503) the RR reduction favoring AIT was more pronounced with 30% for lower respiratory symptoms or worse (RR 0.6914, 95% CI 0.5264 to 0.9081, p = 0.0087) and 51% for need of oxygen therapy or worse (RR 0.4868, 95% CI 0.2829-0.8376, p = 0.0082). Among severe allergic patients treated with biologics (n = 24) only 2/24 needed oxygen therapy. There were no critical cases among them. Conclusion: In our registry AIT was associated with reduced COVID-19 severity.

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.

Cutoff Values of MASK-air Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

BACKGROUND: In clinical and epidemiological studies, cutoffs of patient-reported outcome measures can be used to classify patients into groups of statistical and clinical relevance. However, visual analog scale (VAS) cutoffs in MASK-air have not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To calculate cutoffs for VAS global, nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study design of all MASK-air participants, we compared (1) approaches based on the percentiles (tertiles or quartiles) of VAS distributions and (2) data-driven approaches based on clusters of data from 2 comparators (VAS work and VAS sleep). We then performed sensitivity analyses for individual countries and for VAS levels corresponding to full allergy control. Finally, we tested the different approaches using MASK-air real-world cross-sectional and longitudinal data to assess the most relevant cutoffs. RESULTS: We assessed 395,223 days from 23,201 MASK-air users with self-reported allergic rhinitis. The percentile-oriented approach resulted in lower cutoff values than the data-driven approach. We obtained consistent results in the data-driven approach. Following the latter, the proposed cutoff differentiating "controlled" and "partly-controlled" patients was similar to the cutoff value that had been arbitrarily used (20/100). However, a lower cutoff was obtained to differentiate between "partly-controlled" and "uncontrolled" patients (35 vs the arbitrarily-used value of 50/100). CONCLUSIONS: Using a data-driven approach, we were able to define cutoff values for MASK-air VASs on allergy and asthma symptoms. This may allow for a better classification of patients with rhinitis and asthma according to different levels of control, supporting improved disease management.

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.

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.

Academic Productivity of Young People With Allergic Rhinitis: A MASK-air Study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested an impact of allergic rhinitis on academic productivity. However, large studies with real-world data (RWD) are not available. OBJECTIVE: To use RWD to assess the impact of allergic rhinitis on academic performance (measured through a visual analog scale [VAS] education and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire plus Classroom Impairment Questions: Allergy Specific [WPAI+CIQ:AS] questionnaire), and to identify factors associated with the impact of allergic rhinitis on academic performance. METHODS: We assessed data from the MASK-air mHealth app of users aged 13 to 29 years with allergic rhinitis. We assessed the correlation between variables measuring the impact of allergies on academic performance (VAS education, WPAI+CIQ:AS impact of allergy symptoms on academic performance, and WPAI+CIQ:AS percentage of education hours lost due to allergies) and other variables. In addition, we identified factors associated with the impact of allergic symptoms on academic productivity through multivariable mixed models. RESULTS: A total of 13,454 days (from 1970 patients) were studied. VAS education was strongly correlated with the WPAI+CIQ:AS impact of allergy symptoms on academic productivity (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58; 0.80]), VAS global allergy symptoms (0.70 [95% CI = 0.68; 0.71]), and VAS nose (0.66 [95% CI = 0.65; 0.68]). In multivariable regression models, immunotherapy showed a strong negative association with VAS education (regression coefficient = -2.32 [95% CI = -4.04; -0.59]). Poor rhinitis control, measured by the combined symptom-medication score, was associated with worse VAS education (regression coefficient = 0.88 [95% CI = 0.88; 0.92]), higher impact on academic productivity (regression coefficient = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.49; 0.90]), and higher percentage of missed education hours due to allergy (regression coefficient = 0.44 [95% CI = 0.25; 0.63]). CONCLUSION: Allergy symptoms and worse rhinitis control are associated with worse academic productivity, whereas immunotherapy is associated with higher productivity.

The Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Approach of Value-Added Medicines: As-Needed Treatment in Allergic Rhinitis.

Drug repurposing is a major field of value-added medicine. It involves investigating and evaluating existing drugs for new therapeutic purposes that address unmet healthcare needs. Several unmet needs in allergic rhinitis could be improved by drug repurposing. This could be game-changing for disease management. Current medications for allergic rhinitis are centered on continuous long-term treatment, and medication registration is based on randomized controlled trials carried out for a minimum of 14 days with adherence of 70% or greater. A new way of treating allergic rhinitis is to propose as-needed treatment depending on symptoms, rather than classical continuous treatment. This rostrum will discuss existing clinical trials on as-needed treatment for allergic rhinitis and real-world data obtained by the mobile health app MASK-air, which focuses on digitally-enabled, patient-centered care pathways.

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.

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.

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.

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® app to generate and validate hypothesis- and data-driven CSMSs. METHODS: We used MASK-air® 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® 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® , 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® 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.

Manifesto on inhaled triple therapy in asthma: an Interasma (Global Asthma Association - GAA) document.

Objective: The optimal use of drug combinations for the management of asthma is providing significant results. This has prompted Interasma (Global Asthma Association) to take a position on inhaled triple therapy in asthma.Methods: We performed an extensive literature research to clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews.Results: Starting from an extensive literature review, Interasma executive committee discussed and approved this Manifesto, developed by Interasma scientific network (INES) members.Conclusions: The manifesto describes the evidence gathered to date and states, advocates, and proposes issues on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting beta 2 agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) with the aim of challenging assumptions, fostering commitment, and bringing about change.

Manifesto on united airways diseases (UAD): an Interasma (global asthma association - GAA) document.

OBJECTIVE: The large amount of evidence and the renewed interest in upper and lower airways involvement in infectious and inflammatory diseases has led Interasma (Global Asthma Association) to take a position on United Airways Diseases (UAD). METHODS: Starting from an extensive literature review, Interasma executive committee discussed and approved this Manifesto developed by Interasma scientific network (INES) members. RESULTS: The manifesto describes the evidence gathered to date and defines, states, advocates, and proposes issues on UAD (rhinitis, rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis), and concomitant/comorbid lower airways disorders (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, obstructive sleep apnoea) with the aim of challenging assumptions, fostering commitment, and bringing about change. UAD refers to clinical pictures characterized by the coexistence of upper and lower airways involvement, driven by a common pathophysiological mechanism, leading to a greater burden on patient's health status and requiring an integrated diagnostic and therapeutic plan. The high prevalence of UAD must be taken into account. Upper and lower airways diseases influence disease control and patient's quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with UAD need to have a timely and adequate diagnosis, treatment, and, when recommended, referral for management in a specialized center. Diagnostic testing including skin prick or serum specific IgE, lung function, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), polysomnography, allergen-specific immunotherapies, biological therapies and home based continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) whenever these are recommended, should be part of the management plan for UAD. Education of medical students, physicians, health professionals, patients and caregivers on the UAD is needed.

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.

Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold: An ARIA-EAACI-GA2 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.