Association Between T2-related Comorbidities and Effectiveness of Biologics in Severe Asthma.

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV1% predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV1% predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Exploring Definitions and Predictors of Severe Asthma Clinical Remission Post-Biologic in Adults.

RATIONALE: There is no consensus on criteria to include in an asthma remission definition in real-life. Factors associated with achieving remission post-biologic-initiation remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the proportion of adults with severe asthma achieving multi-domain-defined remission post-biologic-initiation and identify pre-biologic characteristics associated with achieving remission which may be used to predict it. METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 23 countries from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1-year pre- and post-biologic-initiation. A priori-defined remission cut-offs were: 0 exacerbations/year, no long-term oral corticosteroid (LTOCS), partly/well-controlled asthma, and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second ≥80%. Remission was defined using 2 (exacerbations + LTOCS), 3 (+control or +lung function) and 4 of these domains. The association between pre-biologic characteristics and post-biologic remission was assessed by multivariable analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 50.2%, 33.5%, 25.8% and 20.3% of patients met criteria for 2, 3 (+control), 3 (+lung function) and 4-domain-remission, respectively. The odds of achieving 4-domain remission decreased by 15% for every additional 10-years asthma duration (odds ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.00). The odds of remission increased in those with fewer exacerbations/year, lower LTOCS daily dose, better control and better lung function pre-biologic-initiation. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 patients achieved 4-domain remission within 1-year of biologic-initiation. Patients with less severe impairment and shorter asthma duration at initiation had a greater chance of achieving remission post-biologic, indicating that biologic treatment should not be delayed if remission is the goal. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Digitally-enabled, person-centred care (PCC) in allergen immunotherapy: An ARIA-EAACI Position Paper.

In rhinitis and asthma, several mHealth apps have been developed but only a few have been validated. However, these apps have a high potential for improving person-centred care (PCC), especially in allergen immunotherapy (AIT). They can provide support in AIT initiation by selecting the appropriate patient and allergen shared decision-making. They can also help in (i) the evaluation of (early) efficacy, (ii) early and late stopping rules and (iii) the evaluation of (carried-over) efficacy after cessation of the treatment course. Future perspectives have been formulated in the first report of a joint task force (TF)-Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)-on digital biomarkers. The TF on AIT now aims to (i) outline the potential of the clinical applications of mHealth solutions, (ii) express their current limitations, (iii) make proposals regarding further developments for both clinical practice and scientific purpose and (iv) suggest which of the tools might best comply with the purpose of digitally-enabled PCC in AIT.

Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort.

BACKGROUND: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. METHODS: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. RESULTS: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.

Asthma and rhinitis control in adolescents and young adults: A real-world MASK-air study.

BACKGROUND: In allergic rhinitis and asthma, adolescents and young adult patients are likely to differ from older patients. We compared adolescents, young adults and adults on symptoms, control levels, and medication adherence. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study (2015-2022), we assessed European users of the MASK-air mHealth app of three age groups: adolescents (13-18 years), young adults (18-26 years), and adults (>26 years). We compared them on their reported rhinitis and asthma symptoms, use and adherence to rhinitis and asthma treatment and app adherence. Allergy symptoms and control were assessed by means of visual analogue scales (VASs) on rhinitis or asthma, the combined symptom-medication score (CSMS), and the electronic daily control score for asthma (e-DASTHMA). We built multivariable regression models to compare symptoms or medication accounting for potential differences in demographic characteristics and baseline severity. RESULTS: We assessed 965 adolescent users (15,252 days), 4595 young adults (58,161 days), and 15,154 adult users (258,796 days). Users of all three age groups displayed similar app adherence. In multivariable models, age groups were not found to significantly differ in their adherence to rhinitis or asthma medication. These models also found that adolescents reported lower VAS on global allergy, ocular, and asthma symptoms (as well as lower CSMS) than young adults and adults. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents reported a better rhinitis and asthma control than young adults and adults, even though similar medication adherence levels were observed across age groups. These results pave the way for future studies on understanding how adolescents control their allergic diseases.

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%). RESULTS: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment. CONCLUSION: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).

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.

Comparative effectiveness of anti-IL5 and anti-IgE biologic classes in patients with severe asthma eligible for both.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Nomenclature of allergic diseases and hypersensitivity reactions: Adapted to modern needs: An EAACI position paper.

The exponential growth of precision diagnostic tools, including omic technologies, molecular diagnostics, sophisticated genetic and epigenetic editing, imaging and nano-technologies and patient access to extensive health care, has resulted in vast amounts of unbiased data enabling in-depth disease characterization. New disease endotypes have been identified for various allergic diseases and triggered the gradual transition from a disease description focused on symptoms to identifying biomarkers and intricate pathogenetic and metabolic pathways. Consequently, the current disease taxonomy has to be revised for better categorization. This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Position Paper responds to this challenge and provides a modern nomenclature for allergic diseases, which respects the earlier classifications back to the early 20th century. Hypersensitivity reactions originally described by Gell and Coombs have been extended into nine different types comprising antibody- (I-III), cell-mediated (IVa-c), tissue-driven mechanisms (V-VI) and direct response to chemicals (VII). Types I-III are linked to classical and newly described clinical conditions. Type IVa-c are specified and detailed according to the current understanding of T1, T2 and T3 responses. Types V-VI involve epithelial barrier defects and metabolic-induced immune dysregulation, while direct cellular and inflammatory responses to chemicals are covered in type VII. It is notable that several combinations of mixed types may appear in the clinical setting. The clinical relevance of the current approach for allergy practice will be conferred in another article that will follow this year, aiming at showing the relevance in clinical practice where various endotypes can overlap and evolve over the lifetime.

American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred steps 1 to 3 asthma maintenance and reliever therapy and incomplete insurance coverage indicated as main practice hurdle.

BACKGROUND: New asthma guidelines (GINA, 2022; NAEPP EPR-4, 2020) include considerable changes in treatment recommendations, specifically regarding anti-inflammatory rescue and Single MAintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). OBJECTIVE: To explore American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred treatment and perceived hurdles. METHODS: A survey (SurveyMonkey) regarding steps 1 to 3 asthma therapy was e-mailed to American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members. RESULTS: The allergists completed 147 surveys (46% with >20 years of experience; 98% from United States; 29% academic, 75% [also] private practice). In addition, 69% follow the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program and 81% the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. Of 147 allergists, 117 (80%) indicated correctly what SMART strategy is; 21%/36%/50%/39% would use SMART in step 3 treatment of a below 5-year-old/5- to 11-year-old/12- to 65-year-old/above 65-year-old patient, respectively. In this group, 11% to 14% incorrectly chose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus salmeterol and 9% ICS plus vilanterol for SMART. In a 4-year-old needing step 1 therapy (N = 129), 55% of the respondents would add anti-inflammatory therapy; for step 2 treatment, most would prescribe ICS 100 to 200 µg budesonide equivalent daily; in step 3, 49% would prescribe ICS plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA). In a 7-year-old needing step 1 treatment (N = 134), 40% would prescribe only short-acting beta-agonist; in step 3, 45% would institute SMART strategy, but only 8 of 135 (6%) chose very-low dose ICS plus formoterol (as recommended in Global Initiative for Asthma); most (39%) use low-dose ICS plus formoterol. As for rescue therapy, 59% is now instituting some form of anti-inflammatory rescue. Finally, in a 25-year-old patient (N = 144): in step 1, 39% would prescribe exclusively short-acting beta-agonist; in step 2, 4% only anti-inflammatory rescue and the rest prescribes ICS maintenance; one-third begins SMART strategy at step 2 and 50% in step 3. Major hurdles for prescribing one's preferred strategy included incomplete insurance coverage, insurance not approving more than one canister of ICS-formoterol per month, and cost. CONCLUSION: Asthma therapy varies among physicians, with respondents suggesting underutilization of the recommended anti-inflammatory rescue and SMART therapy. A major hurdle is lack of insurance coverage of medication in line with the guidelines.

Biomarkers of Autoimmune Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.

PURPOSEOF REVIEW: Chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic inducible urticaria (CSU/CindU) are caused by mast cell and basophil activation leading to degranulation and the release of histamine and several other mediators. Three kinds of factors can trigger mast cells in CSU: (1) activation of stimulating receptor(s) on the mast cell membrane, (2) upregulation of certain receptor(s), and (3) intracellular dysregulation in signaling with overexpression of the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) or reduced activation of the inhibitory Src homology 2 (SH2)-containing inositol phosphatases (SHIP)-related pathways. In CSU, two major endotypes exist based on the primary receptor activating mechanism: type I hypersensitivity (IgE-mediated, directed against auto-allergens) and type IIb (autoimmune, via IgG autoantibodies directed against IgE or the IgE-receptor). Their treatment responses vary. We discuss in vitro and in vivo biomarkers. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with auto-allergic CSU have clinical characteristics that can distinguish them partly from those with autoimmune CSU. Most importantly, their disease generally presents a less aggressive course, a better response to second generation (up-dosed) antihistamines and a good response to omalizumab, if necessary. Meanwhile, autoimmune CSU/CindU patients fare less well and often need immunosuppressive drugs. Biomarkers that might help endotype CSU/CindU patients and select the most appropriate treatment, dose, and duration, e.g., for autoallergic CSU, high total IgE and IgE against auto-allergens; for autoimmune CSU, low IgE, basopenia, and IgG against autoantigens like thyroid peroxidase and a positive autologous serum skin test (but sometimes also positive in autoallergy). Some biomarkers are easily accessible but of low specificity; others are highly specific but more futuristic.

Consensus on mild asthma management: results of a modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: In order to understand the role of regular controller inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus as-needed ICS-formoterol in managing mild asthma, we performed a modified Delphi procedure. METHODS: Opinions from 16 respiratory experts to three surveys and during a virtual scientific workshop helped to develop final consensus statements (pre-defined as 70% agreement). RESULTS: Thirteen participants completed all rounds (response rate 81%). At the end of the procedure, there was final consensus on: regular daily ICS being the recommended treatment approach in mild persistent asthma, with better symptom control and robust long-term clinical data compared with as-needed ICS-formoterol (85%); to avoid noncompliance, frequently seen in mild asthma patients, regular ICS dosing should be accompanied by ongoing education on treatment adherence (100%); treatment aims should be targeting asthma control (92%) and reduction of exacerbation risk (85%). No consensus was reached on whether GINA or national guidelines most influence prescribing decisions. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to encourage patients to be adherent and to target both asthma control and exacerbation risk reduction. There is robust clinical evidence to support proactive regular dosing with ICS controller therapy plus as-needed short-acting beta-agonists for the management of patients with mild asthma.

[Guidelines on atopic dermatitis for Mexico (GUIDAMEX): using the ADAPTE methodology]. / Guía de dermatitis atópica para México (GUIDAMEX): lineamientos usando metodología ADAPTE.

With the advancement of knowledge in relation to the physiopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD), several new therapeutic forms have been developed. There are also new guidelines for self-care. On the other hand, there is still an underdiagnosis of AD in Mexico. Thus, the need was seen to develop a national guide, with a broad base among the different medical groups that care for patients with AD. The Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines for Mexico (GUIDAMEX) was developed with the ADAPTE methodology, with the endorsement and participation of ten national medical societies, from physicians in Primary Healthcare to allergists and dermatologists. Throughout the manuscript, key clinical questions are answered that lead to recommendations and suggestions for the diagnosis of AD (including differential diagnosis with immunodeficiency syndromes), the recognition of comorbidities and complications, non-pharmacological treatment including therapeutic education, treatment of flares and maintenance therapy. The latter encompasses general measures to avoid triggering factors, first-line treatment focussed on repair of the skin barrier, second-line treatment (topical proactive therapy), and third-line phototherapy or systemic treatment, including dupilumab and JAK inhibitors.

Con el avance de los conocimientos en relación con la fisiopatogenia de la dermatitis atópica (DA) se han desarrollado varias formas terapéuticas nuevas. Asimismo, existen nuevos lineamientos para el autocuidado. Por otro lado, aún existe un subdiagnóstico de la DA en México. Así, se vio la necesidad de desarrollar una guía nacional, con base amplia entre las diferentes agrupaciones médicos que atienden pacientes con DA. Se desarrolló la Guía de DA para México (GUIDAMEX) con la metodología ADAPTE, con el aval y la participación de diez sociedades médicas nacionales, desde médicos del primer contacto hasta alergólogos y dermatólogos. A lo largo del escrito se contestan preguntas clínicas clave que llevan a recomendaciones y sugerencias para el diagnóstico de la DA (incluyendo diagnóstico diferencial con síndromes de inmunodeficiencia), el reconocer de las comorbilidades y complicaciones, las medidas generales (tratamiento no farmacológico) incluyendo la educación terapéutica, el tratamiento de los brotes y el tratamiento de mantenimiento. Este último abarca las medidas generales de evitar agravantes, el tratamiento de primera línea reparador de la barrera cutánea, de segunda línea (manejo proactivo tópico), hasta la fototerapia y el tratamiento sistémico de la tercera línea, incluyendo dupilumab y los inhibidores de la cinasa de Jano.

An independent in-depth analysis proposing adjusted Global Initiative on Asthma Step 1-2 treatment suggestions.

The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) strategy included major changes for the treatment of mild asthma in the 2020 version that are even taken to the next level in 2021, leaving a preferred track with only rescue therapy with inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol (ICS-FORM) for steps 1-2 in 12+ years old. It has been questioned how solid the evidence behind these recommendations is. We decided to independently conduct an in-depth analysis of published evidence based on a comprehensive evaluation of original articles and related appendices and publications, including quality of evidence and risk of bias per article. We first defined the major asthma treatment goals and proceeded to review how these were met in publications referenced in the main asthma guidelines. For patients with GINA (2021) Step 1 characteristics, the analysis supports GINA's decision to avoid SABA monotherapy and to prefer ICS-FORM rescue with an alternative ICS rescue every time a SABA is used for ≥12 years, even though evidence is extrapolated from step 2 patients. For 6- to 11-year-olds, we propose to consider ICS-FORM rescue as an alternative, as its use has been approved in this age group, be it not as rescue medication. For patients with GINA 2021 Step 2 characteristics, our proposal slightly differs from GINA 2021. We propose to continue avoiding the separate use of SABA, using ICS rescue whenever a fast-acting bronchodilator is taken (even with ICS maintenance). Also, the superiority of ICS-FORM rescue over classical step 2 treatment is not uniform and year-long experience is lacking. Consequently, for now, both treatment options seem equal: ICS-FORM rescue or ICS maintenance with SABA (+ICS) rescue. For 6- to 11-year-olds, ICS rescue every time a SABA is used has the advantage of lower total ICS dose; as alternative we suggest ICS-FORM rescue. The best treatment option depends on patient characteristics and treatment goals. Recommendations should be reviewed as soon as new evidence becomes available.

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.

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.

The international EAACI/GA²LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria.

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

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.

Beyond eosinophilia: inflammatory patterns in patients with asthma.

Background: Recently, inflammatory cell ratios have gained importance as useful indicators in the categorization of asthma.Objective: We compared the concentration of white blood cells in peripheral blood, as well as their respective inflammatory cell ratios, between patients with asthma and a healthy control group.Methods: We performed cross-sectional analyses of the data obtained from 53 adult patients with asthma and 109 adult controls. In our study, we estimated and compared the following inflammatory cell ratios: Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), Eosinophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (ELR), Eosinophil-Neutrophil Ratio (ENR), Eosinophil-Monocyte Ratio (EMR), and Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR). The magnitude of association was quantified with the odds ratio.Results: In both groups, the average age was 33 years. In asthmatic patients, we obtained the following results: eosinophils ≥ 400 cells/µl, accounted for 37.7%; basophils ≥ 110 cells/µl, comprised 37.7%; and monocytes < 320 cells/µl, reached 11.3%. In the control group, the results were as follows: 4.6%, 9.2% and 0.9%, respectively. When compared to the control group, asthmatic patients had higher odds of eosinophils ≥ 400 cells/µl (OR = 12.61, p < 0.0001); higher odds of basophils ≥ 110 cells/µl (OR = 6.00, p < 0.0001); and increased odds of monocytes < 320 cells/µl (OR = 13.79, p = 0.017). NLR did not differ between our two groups; however, ELR, ENR, EMR and PLR were significantly higher in the asthma group.Conclusions: Overall, patients with asthma have a higher concentration of eosinophils and basophils, fewer monocytes in their blood, and higher ratios of increased chronic inflammation.

Long-term adherence strategies for allergen immunotherapy.

Adherence is crucial for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) efficacy, and a long-term 3-year adherence is indispensable for the long-term benefits beyond AIT administration. Nonadherence causes should be analyzed not only at the patient level but from a broader perspective, including socioeconomic factors, health-care system factors, and disorder- and therapy-related factors. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) adherence is ∼50% at best and, for sublingual immunotherapy, the numbers are even much worse in some regions. In this review, causes for AIT loss of adherence and strategies, published and from personal experience, to reduce nonadherence are presented. Although the broader picture of causes of nonadherence has to be taken into account, in all this, the patient-physician and patient-health care professional (AIT nurse, assistant) are still in the center, and, in SCIT, each clinic visit for a shot is an opportunity to exploit this interaction in a positive way and stimulate adherence. Patient factors of nonadherence are not so much forgetfulness but more perception of ineffectiveness and adverse effects. An explanation of what can be expected before starting AIT is crucial because most of those who drop out are seen during the first year. Adherence is especially under risk when administration is temporarily interrupted (lockdown, illness, disease flare, vacation, preseasonal AIT administration schedules). The pandemic has caused higher rates of nonadherence specifically due to a fear of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which can be mitigated with good hygiene techniques and strict sanitization protocols, which ensure the patients. Also, patient mobile discussion networks related to AIT can help encourage adherence and reduce fear of infection, even in these difficult times.