Which patients with asthma are most likely to benefit from allergen immunotherapy?

If allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is to be considered as a treatment option for allergic asthma, it must undergo the same developmental steps as other antiasthmatic drugs. The bronchial allergen challenge model has demonstrated excellent negative predictive value for the development of new therapies for asthma. Subcutaneous immunotherapy appears to have a clinical and significant effect on the early asthmatic response to mite, cat, and birch and grass pollens in children and adults. Use of AIT in children with asthma is widely practiced but not supported by as strong a level of evidence as in adults. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets demonstrate efficacy in asthma exacerbations and other outcomes when used as add-on therapy in adult patients. Using a biologic to improve the patient's lung functions and asthma control before initiating AIT can transform unsuitable candidates for AIT into appropriate candidates. Because AIT is a form of personalized medicine, phenotyping the most suitable patient is necessary. Field studies of adults and children have suggested that polysensitized patients with rhinitis and Global Initiative for Asthma class 2 to class 4 asthma appear the most likely to be good responders. We hypothesized that AIT responders are those who demonstrate a high eosinophilic response to natural or experimental exposure.

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.