[Executive Summary of ARIA 2019: Integrated care pathways for allergic rhinitis in Argentina, Spain and Mexico]. / Resumen ejecutivo de ARIA 2019: Vías integradas de atención para la rinitis alérgica en Argentina, España y México.

The health and economic impact of allergic diseases are increasing rapidly, and changes in management strategies are required. Its influence reduces the capacity of work and school performance by at least a third. The ICPs of the airways (integrated care pathways for respiratory diseases) are structured multidisciplinary healthcare plans, promoting the recommendations of the guidelines in local protocols and their application to clinical practice. This document presents an executive summary for Argentina, Mexico, and Spain. Next-generation ARIA guidelines are being developed for the pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), using the GRADE-based guidelines for AR, tested with real-life evidence provided by mobile technology with visual analogue scales. It is concluded that in the AR treatment, H1-antihistamines are less effective than intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), in severe AR the INCS represent the first line of treatment, and intranasal combination INCS + anti-H1 is more effective than monotherapy. However, according to the MASK real-life observational study, patients have poor adherence to treatment and often self-medicate, according to their needs.

El impacto sanitario y económico de las enfermedades alérgicas está aumentando rápidamente y se necesitan cambios en las estrategias para su manejo. Su influencia reduce al menos en un tercio la capacidad de desempeño laboral y escolar. Los ICP (Vías Integradas de Atención) de las enfermedades de las vías respiratorias son planes de atención estructurados y multidisciplinarios, que promueven las recomendaciones de las guías en protocolos locales y su aplicación a la práctica clínica. En este documento se presenta un resumen ejecutivo para Argentina, México y España. Se desarrollan las guías ARIA de próxima generación para el tratamiento farmacológico de la rinitis alérgica (RA) utilizando las pautas basadas en GRADE para RA, probadas con evidencia de la vida real proporcionada por tecnología móvil basada en escalas visuales analógicas. Se concluye que en el tratamiento de la RA, los antihistamínicos anti-H1 son menos efectivos que los corticoides intranasales (CINS), que en la rinitis gravelos CINS representan la primera línea de tratamiento, y que la combinación intranasal de CINS + anti-H1 es más eficaz que la monoterapia. Sin embargo, según el estudio MASK observacional en vida real, los pacientes tienen pobre adherencia al tratamiento y frecuentemente se automedican de acuerdo con sus necesidades.

[ARIA 2016 executive summary: Integrated care pathways for predictive medicine throughout the life cycle in Argentina]. / Resumen ejecutivo de ARIA 2016: vías integradas de atención para la medicina predictiva a lo largo del ciclo de vida en Argentina.

The ARIA initiative was started during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999. The initial goals were to propose a new classification for allergic rhinitis, to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and to develop guidelines with stakeholders for world-wide use. ARIA is now focused on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK: MACVIA-Aria Sentinel Network uses mobile technology to develop care pathways that enable management by a multidisciplinary group or by patients themselves. An App for iOS and Android uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom control and work productivity, as well as a clinical decision support system; it is associated with an interoperable tablet for health professionals. The escalation strategy uses recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of ARIA's new approach is to provide an active and healthy life to people affected by rhinitis, regardless of age, gender or socioeconomic status, in order to reduce social and health inequalities caused by the disease.

La iniciativa ARIA (Rinitis Alérgica y su Impacto en el Asma) se inició durante un taller de la Organización Mundial de la Salud en 1999. Los objetivos iniciales fueron proponer una nueva clasificación de rinitis alérgica, promover el concepto de multimorbilidad en asma y rinitis y desarrollar guías con todas las partes interesadas para su en todos los países y poblaciones. ARIA, difundida e implementada en más de 70 naciones, ahora se centra en la implementación de tecnologías emergentes para la medicina individualizada y predictiva. MASK (MACVIA [Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif] Aria Sentinel Network) utiliza la tecnología móvil para desarrollar vías de atención que permitan el manejo de la rinitis y del asma por un grupo multidisciplinario o por los propios pacientes. Una aplicación (app) para iOS y Android está disponible en 20 países y 15 idiomas; utiliza una escala analógica visual para evaluar el control de los síntomas y la productividad del trabajo, así como un sistema de apoyo para las decisiones clínicas. Se asocia con una tabla interoperable (que permite intercambiar información) para médicos y otros profesionales de la salud. La estrategia de escalamiento utiliza las recomendaciones de la Asociación Europea de Innovación para el Envejecimiento Activo y Saludable. El objetivo del nuevo enfoque ARIA es proporcionar una vida activa y saludable a las personas afectadas por la rinitis, cualquiera que sea su edad, sexo o condición socioeconómica, con el fin de reducir las desigualdades sociales y de salud causadas por la enfermedad.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Umeclidinium and Vilanterol for the Treatment of COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD guidelines recommend the combined use of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) if symptoms are not improved by a single agent. This systematic review tested the hypothesis that the bronchodilator effect of the LABA/LAMA combination, umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VIL), would translate into better outcomes without incurring increased adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This was a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled or crossover trials (> 4 weeks) involving UMEC/VIL compared with its monocomponents, tiotropium, or fluticasone/salmeterol. Primary outcomes were trough FEV1, serious adverse events (SAEs), and serious cardiovascular events (SCVEs). RESULTS: Eleven trials from 10 studies (9,609 patients) showed that UMEV/VIL provided superior improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VIL, tiotropium, and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (mean trough FEV1, 60, 110, 90, and 90 mL, respectively; P < .0001). Also, UMEC/VIL had a greater likelihood of demonstrating a minimal clinically important difference on the Transition Dyspnea Index compared with UMEC and VIL (number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] = 14 and 10, respectively). UMEC/VIL therapy significantly reduced the risk of COPD exacerbations compared with UMEC and VIL (NNTB = 42 and 41, respectively). On the contrary, we noted no significant differences between UMEC/VIL and tiotropium with respect to dyspnea, health status, or risk of COPD exacerbation. Regarding safety issues, the incidence of AEs, SAEs, SCVEs, and mortality on treatment was similar across treatments, suggesting reduced safety concerns with the use of the UMEC/VIL combination. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily inhaled UMEC/VIL showed superior efficacy compared with its monocomponents, tiotropium, and fluticasone/combination in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Formoterol for acute asthma in the emergency department: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although several published studies have suggested that formoterol fumarate could be equivalent to short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) for the treatment of asthma exacerbations, its role in acute asthma treatment remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled formoterol (compared with SABAs) for the emergency department treatment of patients with acute asthma. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and manufactures' trial registers, without language restriction. The primary outcomes were spirometric measures. The secondary outcomes included final serum potassium level, heart rate, electrocardiographic QT interval corrected for heart rate, and total withdrawals. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (including 576 participants) were selected. No significant difference could be detected between formoterol and SABAs for any of the selected time points: at 30 to 40 minutes after the first administration of study drugs (standardized mean difference, -0.19; 95% confidence interval, -0.56 to 0.17; I2 = 75%), at the end of treatment (standardized mean difference, -0.25; 95% confidence interval, -0.72 to 0.13; I2 = 89%), and at 60 to 90 minutes after the last dose (standardized mean difference, -0.13; 95% confidence interval, -0.55 to 0.28; I2 = 80%). Similarly, there were no significant differences between formoterol and SABAs regarding final serum potassium level, heart rate, QT interval, hospitalization rate, and total withdrawals. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that high-dose formoterol administered via dry powder inhaler is well tolerated and provides rapid and effective bronchodilation, similar to high-dose salbutamol or terbutaline via metered-dose inhaler or nebulizer. Formoterol may be used in the treatment of acute asthma in the emergency department setting.