Impact of allergic rhinitis control on work productivity and costs: a real-world data MASK-air study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a substantial socioeconomic impact associated with impaired work productivity. OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of AR on work productivity and estimate the corresponding indirect costs for 40 countries. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using direct patient data from the MASK-air® app on users with self-reported AR. We used the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Allergy Specific to measure the impact of AR on work productivity (presenteeism and absenteeism). Weekly indirect costs were estimated per country, for each level of rhinitis control and considering patients with and without asthma. RESULTS: We assessed data from 677 weeks (364 patients), 280 of which were reported by patients with asthma. Regarding presenteeism, the median impact of AR in weeks of poor disease control was 60.7% (P25-P75=24.9-74.2%), while partial and good disease control were respectively associated with an impact of 25.0% (P25-P75=12.1-42.4%) and 4.4% (P25-75=0.8-12.9%). In poorly-controlled weeks, presenteeism was associated with indirect costs ranging from 65.7 US Dollars purchase power parity (US$ PPPs) (P25-P75=29.2-143.2) in Brazil to 693.6 US$ PPP (P25-P75=405.2-1094.9) in Iceland. Median absenteeism per week was of 0% for all levels of rhinitis control. Patients with AR+asthma showed higher overall work impairment than patients with AR alone, particularly in poorly-controlled weeks (median work impairment in AR alone=39.1% [P25-P75=12.5-71.9%]; median work impairment in AR+asthma=68.4% [P25-P75=54.6-80.2%]). CONCLUSION: Poor AR control was associated with decreased work productivity and increased indirect costs, particularly in patients with AR+asthma. The estimates from this study underpin the economic burden of AR.

Understanding Health Care Students' Perceptions, Beliefs, and Attitudes Toward AI-Powered Language Models: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT was not intended for use in health care, but it has potential benefits that depend on end-user understanding and acceptability, which is where health care students become crucial. There is still a limited amount of research in this area. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of our study was to assess the frequency of ChatGPT use, the perceived level of knowledge, the perceived risks associated with its use, and the ethical issues, as well as attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT in the context of education in the field of health. In addition, we aimed to examine whether there were differences across groups based on demographic variables. The second part of the study aimed to assess the association between the frequency of use, the level of perceived knowledge, the level of risk perception, and the level of perception of ethics as predictive factors for participants' attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May to June 2023 encompassing students of medicine, nursing, dentistry, nutrition, and laboratory science across the Americas. The study used descriptive analysis, chi-square tests, and ANOVA to assess statistical significance across different categories. The study used several ordinal logistic regression models to analyze the impact of predictive factors (frequency of use, perception of knowledge, perception of risk, and ethics perception scores) on attitude as the dependent variable. The models were adjusted for gender, institution type, major, and country. Stata was used to conduct all the analyses. RESULTS: Of 2661 health care students, 42.99% (n=1144) were unaware of ChatGPT. The median score of knowledge was "minimal" (median 2.00, IQR 1.00-3.00). Most respondents (median 2.61, IQR 2.11-3.11) regarded ChatGPT as neither ethical nor unethical. Most participants (median 3.89, IQR 3.44-4.34) "somewhat agreed" that ChatGPT (1) benefits health care settings, (2) provides trustworthy data, (3) is a helpful tool for clinical and educational medical information access, and (4) makes the work easier. In total, 70% (7/10) of people used it for homework. As the perceived knowledge of ChatGPT increased, there was a stronger tendency with regard to having a favorable attitude toward ChatGPT. Higher ethical consideration perception ratings increased the likelihood of considering ChatGPT as a source of trustworthy health care information (odds ratio [OR] 1.620, 95% CI 1.498-1.752), beneficial in medical issues (OR 1.495, 95% CI 1.452-1.539), and useful for medical literature (OR 1.494, 95% CI 1.426-1.564; P<.001 for all results). CONCLUSIONS: Over 40% of American health care students (1144/2661, 42.99%) were unaware of ChatGPT despite its extensive use in the health field. Our data revealed the positive attitudes toward ChatGPT and the desire to learn more about it. Medical educators must explore how chatbots may be included in undergraduate health care education programs.

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

The traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients' resources and abilities to be experts in their own life based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality and coordination, as well as quality of life, are important aims in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centred care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (i) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (ii) digitally-enabled person-centred care (1). It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. The paper includes (i) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a two-decade journey, (ii) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (iii) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (iv) from guidelines to digital care pathways, (v) embedding Planetary Health, (vi) novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (vi) embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (vii) the ARIA-EAACI strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (viii) Artificial Intelligence, (ix) the development of digitally-enabled ARIA Person-Centred Care and (x) the political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centred around the patient in order to make them more applicable and sustainable.

Why fexofenadine is considered as a truly non-sedating antihistamine with no brain penetration: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Fexofenadine is a second-generation inverse agonist of H1-receptor of histamine which is highly selective with proven efficacy in relieving symptoms associated with allergic conditions. It has an additional benefit of not penetrating the blood-brain barrier and therefore do not induce sedation and not impair the cognitive function/psychomotor performance. This review aimed at providing evidence based on available controlled studies to reinforce the non-sedative property of fexofenadine for treating patients with allergic rhinitis and urticaria. METHODS: We performed an electronic literature search using keywords such as fexofenadine, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, cognitive, impairment, psychomotor, driving performances, sleep, rapid eye movement, alertness, clinical study, in vitro study, in vivo study, and pharmacodynamics in the Embase search engine. The review included randomized controlled trials, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, together with post-marketing analysis conducted in healthy subjects and patients with allergy and were focused on comparing the antihistaminic potential or safety of fexofenadine with other antihistamines or placebo. RESULTS: Positron emission tomography (PET) and proportional impairment ratio (PIR) data along with other objective tests from various studies confirmed the non-sedative property of fexofenadine. Results of brain H1-receptor occupancy (H1RO) obtained from PET showed no H1RO by fexofenadine, the receptor which is known to cause sedation of H1 antihistamines. Most studies calculating PIR value as 0 showed fexofenadine to be a non-impairing oral antihistamine regardless of dose. Clinical trials in adults and children showed fexofenadine to be well tolerated without sedative effect or impairment of cognitive/psychomotor function even at higher than recommended doses. CONCLUSION: Published literature based on various parameters and clinical trials conducted for evaluating the effect of fexofenadine on sedation and central nervous system shows fexofenadine is both clinically effective and non-sedating.

Protocol for the systematic reviews on the desirable and undesirable effects of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis informing the ARIA 2024 guidelines.

There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis (AR). In the context of informing the 2024 revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines, we plan to perform three systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the desirable and undesirable effects (i) between intranasal and oral medications for AR; (ii) between combinations of intranasal and oral medications versus nasal or oral medications alone; and (iii) among different intranasal specific medications. We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs examining patients ≥ 12 years old with seasonal or perennial AR. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. If appropriate, we will perform a pairwise random-effects meta-analysis for each pair of assessed medication classes and outcomes, as well as a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative efficacy of intranasal medications among each other. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. This set of systematic reviews will allow for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for AR and inform recommendations in the context of the ARIA guidelines.

Factors Affecting Usage of a Digital Asthma Monitoring Application by Old-Age Asthmatics Living in Inner Central Portugal.

Purpose: To analyse factors affecting the ability to use the digital asthma monitoring application Mask-Air® in old-age individuals living in inland Portugal. Patients and Methods: In this observational study, patients with medically confirmed asthma who agreed to participate were interviewed and subdivided into Non-users Group: those who could not use the application and Users Group: those who could. Sociodemographic and psychological data, comorbidities, and asthma status were compared between groups. Assessment of reasons for refusal was based on a 6-item questionnaire. Results: Among the 72 sequentially recruited patients (mean age±SD 73.26±5.43 yrs; 61 women; 11 men), 44 (61.1%; mean age±SD 74.64±5.68 yrs; 38 women; 6 men)) were included in Non-users Group and 28 (38.9%; mean age±SD 71.11±4.26 yrs; 23 women; 5 men) in Users Group. Non-users Group patients were significantly older, had lower socioeconomic level, and more frequently had severe asthma (25% vs 3.6%; Odds ratio=0.08 (95% CI=0.01-0.81; p=0.033)) and diabetes (32.6% vs 7.4%; Odds ratio=0.17 (95% CI=0.03-0.80; p=0.025)) than Users Group. The main reasons for not using the App were "Lack of required hardware" (n=35) and "Digital illiteracy" (n=26), but lack of interest to use the App among those who had conditions to use it was uncommon. Conclusion: Most old-age asthmatics living in Beira Interior either lack a smartphone or digital skills, which are significant obstacles to implementing app-based monitoring studies.

This study was done to see whether it was possible to use a mobile phone application (App) to help old-age asthmatics living in inner Central Portugal better monitor and self-manage their disease. The researchers interviewed a group of 72 patients with proven asthma who agreed to participate in the study. This group was subdivided into two subgroups: Non-users Group (44 patients) included those who could not use the App because they did not have a smartphone; Users Group (28 patients) included those who had all the conditions to use the App. Patients were helped to download the App (called MASK-Air), were given a thorough explanation about it, and about how it should be used on a daily basis to monitor their asthma symptoms. The researchers found that patients in Non-users Group were significantly older, had worse socioeconomic conditions, and more often had severe asthma and diabetes. They also discovered that the main reasons for not using the App were lack of a smartphone and not knowing how to use a smartphone. These results show that lacking a smartphone and not knowing how to use digital tools are frequent situations in old-age asthmatics living in inner Central Portugal, and these may be obstacles for patients in monitoring their own asthma symptoms.

Embedding patients' values and preferences in guideline development for allergic diseases: The case study of Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma 2024.

Recommendations for or against the use of interventions need to consider both desirable and undesirable effects as well as patients' values and preferences (V&P). In the decision-making context, patients' V&P represent the relative importance people place on the outcomes resulting from a decision. Therefore, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects from an intervention should depend not only on the difference between benefits and harms but also on the value that patients place on them. V&P are therefore one of the criteria to be considered when formulating guideline recommendations in the Evidence-to-Decision framework developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group. Patients' V&P may be quantified through utilities, which can be elicited using direct methods (e.g., standard gamble or time trade-off) or indirect methods (using validated instruments to measure health-related quality of life, such as EQ-5D). The GRADE approach recommends conducting systematic reviews to summarise all the available evidence and assess the degree of certainty on V&P. In this article, we discuss the importance of considering patients' V&P and provide examples of how they are considered in the 2024 person-centred Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines.

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.

Conifers Concentrate Large Numbers of NLR Immune Receptor Genes on One Chromosome.

Nucleotide-binding domain and leucine-rich repeat (NLR) immune receptor genes form a major line of defense in plants, acting in both pathogen recognition and resistance machinery activation. NLRs are reported to form large gene clusters in limber pine (Pinus flexilis), but it is unknown how widespread this genomic architecture may be among the extant species of conifers (Pinophyta). We used comparative genomic analyses to assess patterns in the abundance, diversity, and genomic distribution of NLR genes. Chromosome-level whole genome assemblies and high-density linkage maps in the Pinaceae, Cupressaceae, Taxaceae, and other gymnosperms were scanned for NLR genes using existing and customized pipelines. The discovered genes were mapped across chromosomes and linkage groups and analyzed phylogenetically for evolutionary history. Conifer genomes are characterized by dense clusters of NLR genes, highly localized on one chromosome. These clusters are rich in TNL-encoding genes, which seem to have formed through multiple tandem duplication events. In contrast to angiosperms and nonconiferous gymnosperms, genomic clustering of NLR genes is ubiquitous in conifers. NLR-dense genomic regions are likely to influence a large part of the plant's resistance, informing our understanding of adaptation to biotic stress and the development of genetic resources through breeding.

Rhinitis Phenotypes Based on Multimorbidities.

Chronic allergic and nonallergic rhinitis are common phenotypes of a highly prevalent disorder of the upper airways, often associated with asthma.1 Clinical data, epidemiologic studies, and mHealth-based and genomic approaches indicate the existence of 2 distinct diseases: rhinitis alone and rhinitis + asthma, which may be allergic or less often nonallergic. Both disease phenotypes need to be further characterized, because allergic conjunctivitis, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis, often present in patients with allergic rhinitis, may be considered as independent multimorbidities. Thus, the concept "multimorbid allergic disease" is more appropriate than "one-airway-one-disease." In a meta-analysis, atopic dermatitis was strongly associated with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, but not with rhinitis and asthma.2 Asthma alone may also be associated with non-type 2 mechanisms.3 The distinction between rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma was found in all the 12 countries studied using an mHealth app (MASK-air) in Europe and Latin America. These data indicate that the distinction between the 2 diseases is independent of allergen exposure.4.

English tweets on allergy: Content analysis and association with surveillance data.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of X (formerly Twitter) posts can inform on the interest/perceptions that social media users have on health subjects. In this study, we aimed to analyse tweets on allergic conditions, comparing them with surveillance data. METHODS: We retrieved tweets from England on "allergy," "asthma," and "allergic rhinitis," published between 2016 and 2021. We estimated the correlation between the frequency of tweets on "asthma" and "allergic rhinitis" and English surveillance data on the incidence of asthma and allergic rhinitis medical visits. We performed sentiment analysis, computing a score informing on the emotional tone of assessed tweets. We applied a topic modelling approach to identify topics (clusters of words frequently occurring together) for tweets on each assessed condition. RESULTS: We analysed a total of 13,605 tweets on "allergy," 7767 tweets on "asthma," and 11,974 tweets on "allergic rhinitis." Food-related words were preponderant on tweets on "allergy," while "eyes" was the most frequent meaningful word on "allergy rhinitis" tweets. We observed seasonal patterns for tweets on "allergic rhinitis," both in their frequency and sentiment - the incidence of allergic rhinitis medical visits was moderately to strongly correlated with the frequency (ρ = 0.866) and sentiment (ρ = -0.474) of tweets on "allergic rhinitis." For tweets on "asthma," no such patterns/correlations were observed. The average sentiment score was negative for all assessed conditions, ranging from -0.004 ("asthma") to -0.083 ("allergic rhinitis"). CONCLUSIONS: Tweets on "allergic rhinitis" displayed a seasonal pattern regarding their frequency and sentiment, which correlated with surveillance data. No such patterns were observed for "asthma."

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.

Levels of IgE sensitization drive symptom thresholds in allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common respiratory disease encompassing a variety of phenotypes. Patients can be sensitized to 1 or more allergens. There are indications that polysensitization is associated with more severe disease. However, the extent to which the level of sensitization is associated with clinical disease variability, underlying the distinct nature of AR from AR+ conjunctivitis or AR+ asthma, is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate phenotypical differences between monosensitized and polysensitized patients with AR and to quantify their symptomatic variability. METHODS: A total of 565 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of AR were included in this cross-sectional study. Of those, 155 were monosensitized and 410 were polysensitized. Interactions between sensitization levels and the reporting of different symptoms of AR and co-morbidities, disease duration, and impact were assessed. Furthermore, patients were stratified into monosensitized, oligosensitized, and polysensitized to assess whether the effect of sensitization on the phenotype was ranked. RESULTS: Polysensitized patients reported itchy eyes significantly more often (P = .001) and had a higher number of ocular (P = .005), itch-related (P = .036), and total symptoms (P = .007) than monosensitized patients. In addition, polysensitized adults and children more often reported wheeze (P = .015) and throat-clearing (P = .04), respectively. Polysensitization was associated with more burdensome AR based on a visual analog scale (P = .005). Increased sensitization level was reflected in more itchy eyes, a higher number of ocular, itch-related, and total number of symptoms, and disease burden. CONCLUSION: With an increasing number of sensitizations, patients with AR experience an increased diversity of symptoms. Multimorbidity-related symptoms increase with sensitization rank, suggesting organ-specific thresholds.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVES: We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR. METHODS: The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Poor Rhinitis and Asthma Control Is Associated With Decreased Health-Related Quality of Life and Utilities: A MASK-air Study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma may affect health-related quality of life. However, national estimates on the quality of life of patients with AR or asthma are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To provide estimates for utility scores and EuroQoL five-dimension (EQ-5D) visual analog scale (VAS) for patients with AR or asthma. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using direct patient data from the MASK-air app on European MASK-air users with self-reported AR or asthma. We used a multi-attribute instrument (EQ-5D) to measure quality of life (as utility scores and EQ-5D VAS values). Mean scores were calculated per country and disease control level using multilevel regression models with poststratification, accounting for age and sex biases. RESULTS: We assessed data from 7905 MASK-air users reporting a total of up to 82,737 days. For AR, utilities ranged from 0.86 to 0.99 for good control versus 0.72 to 0.85 for poor control; EQ-5D VAS levels ranged from 78.9 to 87.9 for good control versus 55.3 to 64.2 for poor control. For asthma, utilities ranged from 0.84 to 0.97 for good control versus 0.73 to 0.87 for poor control; EQ-5D VAS levels ranged from 68.4 to 81.5 for good control versus 51.4 to 64.2 for poor control. Poor disease control was associated with a mean loss of 0.14 utilities for both AR and asthma. For the same control levels, AR and asthma were associated with similar utilities and EQ-5D VAS levels. However, lower values were observed for asthma plus AR compared with AR alone. CONCLUSIONS: Poor AR or asthma control are associated with reduced quality of life. The estimates obtained from mobile health data may provide valuable insights for health technology assessment studies.

Proof-of-concept study of anti-Fel d 1 IgY antibodies in cat food using the MASK-air® app.

BACKGROUND: An innovation to better manage cat-allergic patients utilises anti-Fel d 1 IgY antibodies to neutralise Fel d 1 after its production by the cat. However, there is no published study showing its clinical efficacy in humans in a home setting. A longitudinal, open-label, proof-of-concept study was carried out to approach clinical efficacy of the cat food in cat-allergic patients. METHODS: After a baseline evaluation, the cats ate only the cat food for the following 4 months. Daily evaluation of efficacy was performed for 2 weeks at baseline and after 1, 2 and 3 months of intervention for periods of 2 weeks. The MASK-air app was used daily to assess symptoms, work productivity and medications. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients screened, 42 were followed up and 33 (78.5%) reported MASK-air data at all 3 evaluation periods. The primary end point (visual analogue scale [VAS] for global allergy symptoms) was significantly improved (p < 0.0001). All symptoms (VAS nose, eye, and asthma), VAS work and the combined symptom-medication score significantly improved after 1 month. The percentage of uncontrolled days (VAS>20/100) decreased from 64% at baseline to 35% at 1 month (p < 0.0001) and 14% at 3 months. A sensitivity analysis in patients with uncontrolled disease at baseline found similar results. DISCUSSION: A cat diet containing anti-Fel d 1 antibodies was able to (i) show decreased allergic symptoms and related outcomes, (ii) inform the design and feasibility of future studies with a control arm and (iii) estimate the sample size of the study. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05656482.

MASK-air: An OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Best Practice for Public Health on Integrated Care for Chronic Diseases.

In the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on Best Practices (BPs) for Integrating Care to Prevent and Manage Chronic Diseases, an app on rhinitis and asthma (MASK-air [Mobile Airways Sentinel networK for airway diseases]) has been listed. The OECD is a reliable source of evidence-based policy analysis and economic data largely used by governments. It has published several BPs on public health. On May 10, 2023, the OECD published 13 BPs for Integrating Care to Prevent and Manage Chronic Diseases in the European Union. The report did not cover all models of integrated care; rather, it "focuse(d) on those that are of key strategic interest to policy makers." New MASK-air studies (not published in the report) include equity, usability of the app in old-age adults, economic impact, quality of life, and allergen immunotherapy. MASK-air is freely available on iOS and Android in 30 countries and has been recently introduced in the United States. The MASK-air OECD BP represents a model of digitally enabled, patient-centered care for chronic diseases using a holistic approach of shared decision making.