Patients' values and preferences for health states in allergic rhinitis-An artificial intelligence supported systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts patients' physical and emotional well-being. Assessing patients' values and preferences (V&P) related to AR is an essential part of patient-centered care and of the guideline development process. We aimed to systematically summarize the information about patients' V&P on AR and its symptoms and impact on daily life. METHODS: We conducted systematic review in a MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases. We included studies which quantitatively assessed patients' V&P for specific outcomes in AR by assessing utilities, applying discrete choice approaches, or rating and ranking outcomes. We grouped outcomes as AR symptoms, functional status, and care-related patient experience. Study selection and data extraction were supported by the Laser AI tool. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (41 records) were included: nine utility studies, seven direct-choice studies and 21 studies of rating or ranking outcomes. Utilities were lower with increased AR severity and with the concomitant presence of asthma, but not with whether AR was seasonal or perennial (CoE = low-high). Patients rated AR symptom-related outcomes as more important than those related to care-related patient experience and functional status (CoE = very low-moderate). Nasal symptoms (mainly nasal congestion) followed by breathing disorders, general and ocular symptoms were rated as the symptoms with the highest impact. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of V&P of patients with AR. Patients generally considered nasal symptoms as the most important. Future studies with standardized methods are needed to provide more information on V&P in AR.

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.

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.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update - XII - Recommendations on milk formula supplements with and without probiotics for infants and toddlers with CMA.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders. Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as "conditional" following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers' values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable.

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.