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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ARIA digital anamorphosis: Digital transformation of health and care in airway diseases from research to practice.

Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed.

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.

Subcutaneous Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy Is Safe in Pediatric Patients with Allergic Rhinitis.

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy (SCIT) is one of the main cornerstones in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients. It has demonstrated symptoms and quality of life improvement, but it is not exempt from adverse reactions (ADVrs). Nevertheless, there are a few reports that have evaluated their safety. Our objective was to evaluate the ADVr to SCIT in pediatric patients. METHODS: We reviewed 786 clinical records with SCIT from 2005 to 2018, comparing the clinical characteristics of patients with ADVrs with SCIT versus a group of a similar number of patients who completed SCIT (control group, CG). The analysis of ADVrs was according to the World Allergy Organization (WAO) 2010 grading system by frequency analysis, survival curve, and log rank. RESULTS: Of 786 patients, 106 (13.4%) presented ADVrs, and the patients with ADVr had sensitivity and immunotherapy with at least 2 allergens versus CG p < 0.001, containing a combination of standardized and nonstandardized allergens (p = 0.003). The ADVrs were in the buildup phase (p < 0.001). The survival curve showed that 50% had some reaction at 12 weeks of SCIT. The most frequent ADVr was grade 1 in 73/106 patients (68.8%) and grade 2 in 33/106 (31.1%). The log-rank analysis between the grades of the WAO grading system showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The SCIT is safe in pediatric patients. The ADVrs are infrequent, grade 1 being the most reported; however, at >12 weeks, the risk of ADVrs that involve 2 organs systems increases.

Spices to Control COVID-19 Symptoms: Yes, but Not Only .

There are large country variations in COVID-19 death rates that may be partly explained by diet. Many countries with low COVID-19 death rates have a common feature of eating large quantities of fermented vegetables such as cabbage and, in some continents, various spices. Fermented vegetables and spices are agonists of the antioxidant transcription factor nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (Nrf2), and spices are transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 and vanillin 1 (TRPA1/V1) agonists. These mechanisms may explain many COVID-19 symptoms and severity. It appears that there is a synergy between Nrf2 and TRPA1/V1 foods that may explain the role of diet in COVID-19. One of the mechanisms of COVID-19 appears to be an oxygen species (ROS)-mediated process in synergy with TRP channels, modulated by Nrf2 pathways. Spicy foods are likely to desensitize TRP channels and act in synergy with exogenous antioxidants that activate the Nrf2 pathway.

Potential Interplay between Nrf2, TRPA1, and TRPV1 in Nutrients for the Control of COVID-19.

In this article, we propose that differences in COVID-19 morbidity may be associated with transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) and/or transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) activation as well as desensitization. TRPA1 and TRPV1 induce inflammation and play a key role in the physiology of almost all organs. They may augment sensory or vagal nerve discharges to evoke pain and several symptoms of COVID-19, including cough, nasal obstruction, vomiting, diarrhea, and, at least partly, sudden and severe loss of smell and taste. TRPA1 can be activated by reactive oxygen species and may therefore be up-regulated in COVID-19. TRPA1 and TRPV1 channels can be activated by pungent compounds including many nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2) (Nrf2)-interacting foods leading to channel desensitization. Interactions between Nrf2-associated nutrients and TRPA1/TRPV1 may be partly responsible for the severity of some of the COVID-19 symptoms. The regulation by Nrf2 of TRPA1/TRPV1 is still unclear, but suggested from very limited clinical evidence. In COVID-19, it is proposed that rapid desensitization of TRAP1/TRPV1 by some ingredients in foods could reduce symptom severity and provide new therapeutic strategies.

Coronavirus disease 2019, allergic diseases, and allergen immunotherapy: Possible favorable mechanisms of interaction.

Background: Both, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and SARS-COV-2 infection cause a set of immunologic changes that respectively vary during the course of the treatment or the disease. Objective: To review immune changes brought along by each of these entities and how they might interrelate. Methods: We start presenting a brief review of the structure of the new coronavirus and how it alters the functioning of the human immune system. Subsequently, we describe the immune changes induced by AIT and how these changes could be favorable or unfavorable in the allergic patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 at a particular point of time during the evolving infection. Results: We describe how a healthy immune response against SARS-CoV-2 develops, versus an immune response that is initially suppressed by the virus, but ultimately overactivated, leading to an excessive production of cytokines (cytokine-storm-like). These changes are then linked to the clinical manifestations and outcomes of the patient. Reviewing the immune changes secondary to AIT, it becomes clear how AIT is capable of restoring a healthy innate immunity. Investigators have previously shown that the frequency of respiratory infections is reduced in allergic patients treated with AIT. On the other hand it also increases immunoregulation. Conclusion: As there are many variables involved, it is hard to predict how AIT could influence the allergic patient's reaction to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In any case, AIT is likely to be beneficial for the patient with allergic rhinitis and/or allergic asthma in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic as controlling allergic diseases leads to a reduced need for contact with healthcare professionals. The authors remind the reader that everything in this article is still theoretical, since at the moment, there are no published clinical trials on the outcome of COVID-19 in allergic patients under AIT.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Pediatric asthma treatment: What to do when international guideline recommendations do not agree.

BACKGROUND: There was a need for a solid asthma guideline in Mexico to update and unify asthma management. Because high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, in which the latest evidence on asthma management is summarized, the ADAPTE approach allows for the development of a national asthma guideline based on evidence from already existing guidelines, adapted to national needs. OBJECTIVE: To fuse evidence from the best asthma guidelines and adapt it to local needs with the ADAPTE approach. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II asthma guidelines were evaluated by a core group to select 3 primary guidelines. For each step of asthma management, clinical questions were formulated and replied according to (1) evidence in the primary guidelines, (2) safety, (3) Cost, and (4) patient preference. The Guidelines Development Group, composed of a broad range of experts from medical specialties, primary care physicians, and methodologists, adjusted the draft questions and replies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings, taking into account the reality of the situation in Mexico. We present the results of the pediatric asthma treatment part. RESULTS: Selected primary guidelines are from the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and Spanish Guidelines on the Management of Asthma (GEMA) 2015, with 2016 updates. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico. In this article, the detailed analysis of the evidence present in the BTS/SIGN, GINA, and GEMA sections on the (non) pharmacologic treatment of pediatric asthma, education, and devices are presented for 2 age groups: children 5 years or younger and children 6 to 11 years old with asthma. CONCLUSION: For the pediatric treatment and patient education sections, applying the AGREE II and Delphi methods is useful to develop a scientifically sustained document, adjusted to the Mexican situation, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma.

Update on Omalizumab for Urticaria: What's New in the Literature from Mechanisms to Clinic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since omalizumab has been approved for urticaria, numerous randomized and real-life observational trials have been published. We reviewed the period January 2017-February 2018. RECENT FINDINGS: Omalizumab is effective for the control of urticaria recalcitrant to antihistamines in different populations globally. The ratio of total serum IgE 4-week/baseline ≥2 can predict response with a high likelihood. In observational real-life trials, doses have been adjusted on an individual basis: in some populations, up to two-thirds of the patients can be controlled with 150 mg/month; however, others are still not controlled with 300 mg/month. In these, 150 mg bimonthly could be tried, before up-dosing to 450 mg/month. On the long run (up to 3 years) omalizumab kept its efficacy. In many patients, dosing intervals could be augmented (6-8 weeks, some even more). After a 12-month treatment, about 20% showed long-term remission without relapse. Some biomarkers are being detected. Adjusting omalizumab doses in urticaria patients could enhance efficacy (shortening dosing interval and/or augmenting dose) and save costs (after 12 months: extending dosing interval and/or reducing dose).

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines-2016 revision.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. METHODS: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.